Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / September 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

[SI] call for mandates and guidelines

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Alan Browne - 01 Sep 2008 16:21 GMT
Hello all,

First, thanks to all who participated in the most recent round,
breathing a little more life into the SI.  The factors that contributed,
other than my constant begging for photos include the 3 per photog limit
(which most took advantage of) and the open mandate allowing people to
put up what they liked.

As you all know I have very selective hearing <g> however I would like:

# Mandate ideas.  Please, not too abstract.

# Guidelines on submission criteria
     . how many per photog
     . dimensions (pixels)

I'd like to announce the end-of-Sept mandate by the end of this week.

Cheers,
Alan.

Signature

-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
--        r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
--      [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
--                   e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Annika1980 - 01 Sep 2008 19:45 GMT
On Sep 1, 11:21 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
wrote:
> As you all know I have very selective hearing <g> however I would like:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>       . how many per photog
>       . dimensions (pixels)

Not that you ever listen to any of my advice, but ........

I like the limit of 3 per photog.  Doesn't mean that you have to
submit 3, of course, but it might give people a chance to explore
different interpretations of a mandate.  Also, the more pics the
merrier.

I think a size of 900x600 works well. Not everyone has a super high-
res display.  My monitor is set for 1152x864, for example, so a
900x600 pic works well within the pbase galleries.

As for mandate ideas, I'll have to think on that one.  I prefer
mandates which give room for various interpretations rather than
somehing like "Summer" or "Red."

Maybe simple themes like "Home" or "Work" would be a good choice for
starters?  Or "Hummers."
How about "Hummers at Work?"
Alan Browne - 01 Sep 2008 19:47 GMT
> How about "Hummers at Work?"

Let us pray.

Signature

-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
--        r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
--      [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
--                   e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

jimkramer - 01 Sep 2008 19:52 GMT
>> How about "Hummers at Work?"
>
> Let us pray.

I'm confused, are you for or against?
-Jim
Alan Browne - 01 Sep 2008 20:19 GMT
>>> How about "Hummers at Work?"
>> Let us pray.
>>
> I'm confused, are you for or against?

I have deadlines to meet and people to call and it's really hard to use
a computer when being hummed to and preyed upon.

Clear enough?

Signature

-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
--        r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
--      [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
--                   e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

jimkramer - 01 Sep 2008 20:52 GMT
>>>> How about "Hummers at Work?"
>>> Let us pray.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Clear enough?

Just like mud, Mississippi Mud.
-Jim
Böwser - 04 Sep 2008 01:36 GMT
>Maybe simple themes like "Home" or "Work" would be a good choice for
>starters?  Or "Hummers."
>How about "Hummers at Work?"

ya think that's why McCain choose Palin?

Sooooo sorry.....
Alan Browne - 04 Sep 2008 01:41 GMT
>> Maybe simple themes like "Home" or "Work" would be a good choice for
>> starters?  Or "Hummers."
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Sooooo sorry.....

Palin is blow-ing up in the Reps faces... Kleenex?

They really screwed the pooch with Palin... there goes McCain trying to
be "green" and then he pulls in Palin who doesn't believe in AGW, wants
to drill everywhere yesterday, apparently she sees no need for sex ed
(ironic, eh, Gramma Sarah?).

Some old dog Republicans were caught on hot mics today and the old dogs
are really not happy...

Signature

-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
--        r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
--      [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
--                   e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Robert Coe - 04 Sep 2008 02:02 GMT
: They really screwed the pooch with Palin... there goes McCain trying to
: be "green" and then he pulls in Palin who doesn't believe in AGW, wants
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
: Some old dog Republicans were caught on hot mics today and the old dogs
: are really not happy...

I'm an old dog Republican (since 1958!), and I'm overjoyed. Of course, that's
because I'm supporting Obama.

Bob
Atheist Chaplain - 04 Sep 2008 02:07 GMT
Böwser wrote:

>> Maybe simple themes like "Home" or "Work" would be a good choice for
>> starters?  Or "Hummers."
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>Some old dog Republicans were caught on hot mics today and the old dogs are
>really not happy...

This says it all realy

http://www.bigpond.com/news/topstories/content/20080903/2353903.asp

Palin picked as last resort after evangelical revolt
By John Shovelan in Washington
September 3, 2008 - 9:00AM
Source: ABC

Republican presidential candidate John McCain picked Alaska Governor Sarah
Palin as his running mate after conservatives threatened a revolt if he went
with his first choice, former Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman.
Senator McCain has defended his choice of Ms Palin to run for vice-president
after news of her 17-year-old pregnant unmarried daughter dominated day one
of the Republican national convention in St Paul, Minnesota.
Now it has emerged that the shock announcement of the unknown Ms Palin was
forced upon Senator McCain after conservatives threatened a revolt at the
convention if he pushed ahead with his preferred vice-presidential pick,
Independent and former Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman.
After weeks of vetting his potential vice-presidential picks, Senator McCain
was set on his old friend and Al Gore's running mate in 2000, Senator
Lieberman.
But 10 days ago Senator McCain was called into a meeting by several of his
most senior and trusted campaign advisers.
He was told if he proceeded to nominate Senator Lieberman, who is pro-choice
on the issue of abortion, the conservative Christian base of the party would
take the issue to the floor of the convention and try to overturn the
selection.
Senator McCain was told that without the base he would certainly lose the
election.
With little choice, he accepted the advice and re-opened the hunt in a
scramble to find another running mate.
Five days later, after one face-to-face meeting with Ms Palin in Arizona,
Senator McCain announced she would be his vice-presidential pick.
Democrat Tom Vilsack says Senator McCain simply caved in to the extreme
right wing of the Republican Party.
"This was the first opportunity for Senator McCain to exercise what would be
a presidential decision, he made a decision in which he felt the necessity
of playing to the extreme right in his party," he said.
The New York Times reports today that the McCain campaign has a team on the
ground now in Alaska to look more thoroughly into Ms Palin's background.
Just yesterday the campaign was shaken with a number of disclosures relating
to Ms Palin and her family, including a statement released by the McCain
campaign itself that Ms Palin's 17-year-old daughter was pregnant.
It was also confirmed that Ms Palin had hired a lawyer to represent her in
an ethics investigation in which she is accused of trying to have a former
brother-in-law sacked after a bitter marriage break-up with her sister.
Senator McCain says he remains content with the vetting process and his
choice.
"The process was completely thorough and I'm grateful for the results."
"Governor Palin is a conservative Christian, who is opposed to abortion,
contraceptives in schools and sex education in the class room."
She advocates abstinence for teenagers.
Her selection by Senator McCain immediately excited the evangelical base and
his campaign received around $US10 million in donations over the weekend.

Signature

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg

Savageduck - 04 Sep 2008 05:29 GMT
> "Governor Palin is a conservative Christian, who is opposed to
> abortion, contraceptives in schools and sex education in the class
> room."
> She advocates abstinence for teenagers.

I guess this is all working well in the example set by her management
of her family.
Annika1980 - 04 Sep 2008 06:42 GMT
> "This was the first opportunity for Senator McCain to exercise what would be
> a presidential decision, he made a decision in which he felt the necessity
> of playing to the extreme right in his party," he said.

So McCain won't stand up to terrorists.  That's good to know.
mj - 04 Sep 2008 04:45 GMT
Böwser wrote:

>> Maybe simple themes like "Home" or "Work" would be a good choice for
>> starters?  Or "Hummers."
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Sooooo sorry.....

Palin is blow-ing up in the Reps faces... Kleenex?

They really screwed the pooch with Palin... there goes McCain trying to
be "green" and then he pulls in Palin who doesn't believe in AGW, wants
to drill everywhere yesterday, apparently she sees no need for sex ed
(ironic, eh, Gramma Sarah?).

Some old dog Republicans were caught on hot mics today and the old dogs
are really not happy...

Signature

And Obama sounds just like the same old socialist dems.  Sadly part of this
mess is that neither McCain nor Obama are the leaders we need running.  Also
sadly the American people STILL haven't figured out that it *is* the
congress that writes the laws and *spends* the money and it is congress that
has put us where we are today.  AND to keep this OT I shot several frames of
the VP speech tonight with both my Pentax LX and K2.

Alan Browne - 04 Sep 2008 22:40 GMT
*****
And Obama sounds just like the same old socialist dems.  Sadly part of this
mess is that neither McCain nor Obama are the leaders we need running.
Also
sadly the American people STILL haven't figured out that it *is* the
congress that writes the laws and *spends* the money and it is congress
that
has put us where we are today.
******

You can't have both sides of that argument becasue Bush keeps vetoing
the majority votes of both houses and has usurped the ability of
Congress to do its elected job.  You can't blame congress for laws they
made that Bush then vetoed...

I'm not sure if he's set the record on vetoes,but he's way up there.  He
will be reviled in history as the President who has most abused
executive power and to have invoked executive privilege to cover up the
rot in his WH.  (Big Oil, Plame/Scooter...).

US politics is more and more a beauty contest coupled to demographic
pandering.  It is why the US has a $9.4T debt which costs Americans on
the order of $800M / day in borrowing costs alone.  Bush inflated that
number from about $6T all by himself after Clinton handed him a nice
annual surplus.  That $6T had taken 4 decades to accumulate.  His urging
to lower the prime rate was a key actor in the current subprime meltdown
(although other factors like stupid finance people didn't help).

PS: Never put double dashes at the start of line in the body of your
post.  News readers strip following text out as if it were a signature.
 Hence the odd attribution above.

Signature

-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
--        r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
--      [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
--                   e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

tony cooper - 05 Sep 2008 00:05 GMT
>*****
>And Obama sounds just like the same old socialist dems.  Sadly part of this
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>Congress to do its elected job.  You can't blame congress for laws they
>made that Bush then vetoed...

Whoa, now.  Bush vetoed a total of 10 bills between January 2001 and
May 2008.  That's about one-third of the number of vetoes by Clinton
(37) and Bush, Sr (29).  See:
http://uspolitics.about.com/library/bl_presidential_vetoes.htm

The problem in more in the bills that were passed and made into law
than the bills that were vetoed.  In our system, completely unrelated
issues can be, and are, included in bills.  Because the President does
not have line-item veto power, the whole bill becomes law and not just
the "good" parts of the bill.  

>I'm not sure if he's set the record on vetoes,but he's way up there.

Not even close.  FDR holds the record at 372.  Bush has vetoed fewer
bills than Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, and Truman.  (Our recent
Democratic Presidents)  He has vetoed fewer bills than any President
since Harding in the 1920s.

>He
>will be reviled in history as the President who has most abused
>executive power and to have invoked executive privilege to cover up the
>rot in his WH.  (Big Oil, Plame/Scooter...).

Agreed.

>US politics is more and more a beauty contest coupled to demographic
>pandering.

Agreed, but is this different from other countries with a similar
process?  Your system is entirely different since you do not directly
elect your Prime Minister.  Harper was not the choice of the people of
Canada; he was the choice of the Conservative Party and the voters
only of his riding.  (I think I have that right.  I'm working from
memory and not looking it up as I probably should.)

>It is why

What is why?  Vetoes?  Not at all.  

>the US has a $9.4T debt which costs Americans on
>the order of $800M / day in borrowing costs alone.  Bush inflated that
>number from about $6T all by himself after Clinton handed him a nice
>annual surplus.  That $6T had taken 4 decades to accumulate.  His urging
>to lower the prime rate was a key actor in the current subprime meltdown
>(although other factors like stupid finance people didn't help).

If you want to comment on US politics, please make an effort to get
your facts straight first.  I'm certainly not offended when a
non-American criticizes our system because - one way or the other -
what we do does have impact on the rest of the world.  And, I'm not
offended when Bush is the object of criticism or even ridicule.  I'm
usually in agreement with critical or ridiculing comments about the
present administration.

While your opinion is welcome, it is discounted considerably when you
make a totally inaccurate statement as you have here.  

Just for the record...I'm a registered Republican who has not voted
for a Republican for President since Nixon in 1972, and I regret that
now.  I will vote for Obama in the coming election.  I'm not convinced
that Obama is the best candidate, but he is the better candidate in
this election and my hopes are that he will clean house.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Annika1980 - 05 Sep 2008 00:11 GMT
On Sep 4, 5:40 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
wrote:

Bush had only vetoed one bill before the power change in Congress.
And that bill was the one prohibiting torture.
I think he should be tortured.
Ken Nadvornick - 02 Sep 2008 06:35 GMT
> As you all know I have very selective hearing <g> however I would like:

> # Mandate ideas.  Please, not too abstract.

Need to noodle on this one...

> # Guidelines on submission criteria
>       . how many per photog
>       . dimensions (pixels)

Three is good, as long as it's not a requirement.  I still have hopes of using
my 8x10 for a few submissions, in which case multiple entries ain't likely to
be in the game plan.

Don't need to noodle on this one.  Moving submissions to 1200x1000 forced me
to reconfigure my ancient NEC XP-21 from 1280x1024 to 1600x1200.  Even so,
verticals at 1200 still won't completely display within a browser's frame.
For me, it's probably just a bit large.  For others, (hi Bret) it's definitely
large.

Since the vertical is the limiting factor, how about a long dimension of 900?
This is what Bret suggested, although I wonder if he considered verticals at
his resolution.  I could comfortably go to verticals of 1000 in the browser at
1600x1200, but at some point the lower resolution users really start to get
shortchanged.

I just think it's important, especially for critiques, to be able to see the
entire frame at a single glance.

> I'd like to announce the end-of-Sept mandate by the end of this week.

Any chance to announce earlier?  With my current job constraints, every little
extra bit of time really helps.

Ken
Alan Browne - 02 Sep 2008 22:47 GMT
>> As you all know I have very selective hearing <g> however I would like:
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> For me, it's probably just a bit large.  For others, (hi Bret) it's definitely
> large.

You don't _have_ to go to max dim.  I thought some people (myself
included) would prefer it as monitor sizes increase.

> Since the vertical is the limiting factor, how about a long dimension of 900?
> This is what Bret suggested, although I wonder if he considered verticals at
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Any chance to announce earlier?  With my current job constraints, every little
> extra bit of time really helps.

Waiting on mandates.  And if you submit something off mandate, do you
really think that we will invade your home state of Texas?

Signature

-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
--        r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
--      [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
--                   e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Troy Piggins - 03 Sep 2008 23:57 GMT
* Alan Browne wrote :

> First, thanks to all who participated in the most recent round,
> breathing a little more life into the SI.  The factors that contributed,
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> I'd like to announce the end-of-Sept mandate by the end of this week.

Hey, I just had a great idea for a mandate!  How about

 "Insect macros with flower dewdrop refractions in the same shot"

That way noone will be able to guess my submission!  :)

Sorry.  Ok, serious now...

Mandate ideas:

- I've said this before, and I think the success of this most
 recent "Open" SI is backing up my theory that it's the broader
 mandates that will get more people in.  This in no way takes away
 the awesome job AB did in recruiting people BTW.  But I think if
 we make easier mandates, people are more likely to submit.

- Again, reiterating previous suggestions by me, how about basics
 like composition, exposure, lighting, colour, patterns,
 texture?  They're all fundamentals of photography, and in one
 way or another all the critiques commented on these aspects of
 the submissions anyway.  Why not make a mandate on one or 2 of
 them to focus that aspect and hone out skillz.

- First day of Spring here recently, got me thinking about
 "Seasons" as a mandate.  I notice Autumn as a previous mandate,
 but in different parts of the world seasons are different same
 time of year, so it will either exclude some or there'll be more
 archive shots.

- Was also thinking about different styles of photography.
 Urban, people/portraits, landscape, still life, and so on.  I
 think we all fall into what we're comfortable with and pretty
 much keep to the same style of photography.  I know whenever I
 try to shoot groups of people, even portraits, I suck and feel
 all anxious and out of my depth.  Might give people a bit of a
 push towards different style?

- Considering it might be hard to think of original ideas for
 mandates, I don't see anything wrong with recycling popular
 mandates from the past, too.  I don't have enough history to
 know which ones they might be, but you might.

Guidelines:

- I think the 3 per photog was great for such an "open" mandate,
 but for more specific mandates it might be difficult to
 achieve.  Still would like to keep that, though.  But I
 wouldn't expect everyone to be able to keep up the max limit and
 would think some more specific mandates would only get 1
 submission per photog.

- Personally I feel bigger is better.  I like 1280 longest side,
 rounded down to 1200 was fine with me.  I like to be able to
 see the detail that I sometimes miss in smaller images.  Would
 have thought most modern monitors shouldn't have a problem with
 1200 max?  I really don't think we should go below say
 900-1000px.

- Aspect ratio - who cares?  Whatever the photog wants to best
 display his/her photo so we can see their intention as they
 want us to.

That's all I got for now.

Signature

Troy Piggins
I always appreciate critique.

Mark Thomas - 04 Sep 2008 00:15 GMT
> Hey, I just had a great idea for a mandate!  How about
>
>   "Insect macros with flower dewdrop refractions in the same shot"
>
> That way noone will be able to guess my submission!  :)

And for the same reason, I want "Panoramas"!

> Sorry.  Ok, serious now...
Same..

I agree with Troy's comments - although they may be perceived as boring
and repetitive, wide mandates are good.  There have been *many* times
when I have not entered any submission because I either couldn't think
of anything, or what I did come up with was just too lame.  (And believe
me, that means really bad, because I'm generally fine with posting my
disasters..)

> - Again, reiterating previous suggestions by me, how about basics
>   like composition, exposure, lighting, colour, patterns,
>   texture?  They're all fundamentals of photography

And of course, just plain old "Black and White"...

> - First day of Spring here recently, got me thinking about
>   "Seasons" as a mandate.  I notice Autumn as a previous mandate,
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>   mandates, I don't see anything wrong with recycling popular
>   mandates from the past, too.

Agreed, and by pointing at the previous one you encourage people by
giving hints.

> - I think the 3 per photog was great for such an "open" mandate,
>   but for more specific mandates it might be difficult to
>   achieve.  Still would like to keep that, though.

DEFINITELY.

> - Personally I feel bigger is better.

Me too, and while I understand the reasoning behind keeping things
around 1000, I would like to think that if you ran a Panorama mandate,
that the rulz would be relaxed!

> - Aspect ratio - who cares?  Whatever the photog wants to best
>   display his/her photo so we can see their intention as they
>   want us to.

Thanks, Troy.  It seems there is only one (non-current contributor) who
believes this, and his last submission broke his own rules anyway.

That's all I got too, except if you still want suggestions of the old
type, here's a few:

Wasn't Me
High Key / Low Key
Panorama
The Party
Dream On
Blown
When Things Go Bad
Alan Browne - 04 Sep 2008 00:41 GMT
>> - Personally I feel bigger is better.
>
> Me too, and while I understand the reasoning behind keeping things
> around 1000, I would like to think that if you ran a Panorama mandate,
> that the rulz would be relaxed!

For you, sure.

>> - Aspect ratio - who cares?  Whatever the photog wants to best
>>   display his/her photo so we can see their intention as they
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Blown
> When Things Go Bad

Thanks.  There are good but some fall a little into what I call
"abstract" and difficult for people to approach.  "Wasn't me", "Dream
on", "When things go bad", etc.

Signature

-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
--        r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
--      [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
--                   e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

tony cooper - 04 Sep 2008 01:25 GMT
I didn't send anything in to the just-over Shoot-In because I was busy
remodeling a porch early on, and we had this little hurricane - Fay -
here dumping rain on us every day when I had planned to be out
shooting pictures.  I wasn't aware that we could enter photographs
taken before the Shoot-In.  I thought they had to be new pictures
taken just for this.  My mistake.

Also, I'll admit, I was a little intimidated.  After seeing the posted
results, I won't be intimidated next time.  My shots aren't as good as
some (most?), but I wouldn't have been Beetlebaum* in that race.

As for topics...I hope you don't do "Seasons".  We don't have them in
Florida!  I suppose I could submit a shot of a tourist with lobster
red skin and a peeling nose and title it "Tourist Season", but that
changing stuff just doesn't happen down here.

Just some suggestions:  Geometric shapes...circles or triangles or
some shape with an image that incorporates the shape.  New
growth...something emerging like a plant or a butterfly (for the macro
people) or something hatching out of an egg or something that is
passing from one stage of life to another.  Repetition...a series of
things like ducklings following their mother or any scene where there
is no single focus of attention but the repetition of similar objects
makes the image.  

*Anyone but me old enough to remember Spike Jones doing the William
Tell Overture as a description of a horse race?  Did you know in the
original version the name was "Feitlebaum" but so many people heard it
as "Beetlebaum" that this became the "official" version.  

My analogy isn't quite right, though, because the horse ended up
winning.  I still remember the horse always being at the back of the
pack.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Frank ess - 04 Sep 2008 02:27 GMT
> I didn't send anything in to the just-over Shoot-In because I was
> busy remodeling a porch early on, and we had this little hurricane
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> winning.  I still remember the horse always being at the back of the
> pack.

"Long Underwear is falling down behind.

"Bird Poop is on the rail.

"Cabbage is going on ahead."

How old is that? Not so very ...

Signature

Frank ess

tony cooper - 04 Sep 2008 03:01 GMT
>> My analogy isn't quite right, though, because the horse ended up
>> winning.  I still remember the horse always being at the back of the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>How old is that? Not so very ...

It was first released in 1948.  I'd say that counts as "old" by most
here.  In that same year, Polaroid cameras used roll film and not the
packs we associate with Polaroid.  Our parents took pictures of us
with Ansco Shure Shot box cameras or Keystone wind-up 8mm movie
cameras, the parents of a rich kid might have used the Nikon I, Candid
Camera premiered on television, Dr Rudolph Steinbeck introduced a
wrist camera that took 400 pictures on a roll of 35mm film, Olympus
hit the market with the 35I in Japan, and Voigtländer got back in the
camera business with the Bessa 66.

For a training video on how to use a movie camera, circa 1948, see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msLgBZ8wJ9I

 

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Alan Browne - 04 Sep 2008 00:38 GMT
> Hey, I just had a great idea for a mandate!  How about
>
>   "Insect macros with flower dewdrop refractions in the same shot"

Ah, it's been done.

> That way noone will be able to guess my submission!  :)
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>   the awesome job AB did in recruiting people BTW.  But I think if
>   we make easier mandates, people are more likely to submit.

This has been my statement for the last couple years.  The mandates were
so abstract as to challenge the less artistically inclined (me for
example) to come up with much.  I like more concrete mandates too.

> - Again, reiterating previous suggestions by me, how about basics
>   like composition, exposure, lighting, colour, patterns,
>   texture?  They're all fundamentals of photography, and in one
>   way or another all the critiques commented on these aspects of
>   the submissions anyway.  Why not make a mandate on one or 2 of
>   them to focus that aspect and hone out skillz.

There were a few mandates like that.  I like such.

> - First day of Spring here recently, got me thinking about
>   "Seasons" as a mandate.  I notice Autumn as a previous mandate,
>   but in different parts of the world seasons are different same
>   time of year, so it will either exclude some or there'll be more
>   archive shots.

I think "Seasons" is a fine mandate.  The resulting photo would have to
make people thing of that season w/o a specific season being the
mandate... but here the time element creeps in, and people will have
(ironically) less time to get a photo that states the mandate well.

> - Was also thinking about different styles of photography.
>   Urban, people/portraits, landscape, still life, and so on.  I
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>   all anxious and out of my depth.  Might give people a bit of a
>   push towards different style?

"People" as a mandate is okay, but brings up a issues related to photo
releases.

> - Considering it might be hard to think of original ideas for
>   mandates, I don't see anything wrong with recycling popular
>   mandates from the past, too.  I don't have enough history to
>   know which ones they might be, but you might.

In the past, people would each put in 1 mandate per round and then the
moderator would randomly draw them to set the schedule for the round.
So all the proposed mandates got used.

In more recent times it's been less controlled.  Esp. since I stepped in...

> Guidelines:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>   would think some more specific mandates would only get 1
>   submission per photog.

Nobody said you had to have three, although there was a lot of
irritation from one fellow for it to be so...

> - Personally I feel bigger is better.  I like 1280 longest side,
>   rounded down to 1200 was fine with me.  I like to be able to
>   see the detail that I sometimes miss in smaller images.  Would
>   have thought most modern monitors shouldn't have a problem with
>   1200 max?  I really don't think we should go below say
>   900-1000px.

I think, given the comments from others, that we might back it down a
little to accommodate their poverty.   Uh, I mean smaller monitors.

> - Aspect ratio - who cares?  

    Nobody.  And I mean nobody.

Thanks for the inputs.

I'll write something within 72 hours for a 'vote' or discussion.

Signature

-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
--        r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
--      [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
--                   e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Frank ess - 04 Sep 2008 02:17 GMT
>> Hey, I just had a great idea for a mandate!  How about
>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> for example) to come up with much.  I like more concrete mandates
> too.

[ ... ]

Ooh! Ooh!

Let's do "Backlit" again; I still have a few oldies left over from
last time.

No, really.

"My Commute", be it from bed to desk or Temecula to La Jolla, as long
as the recording is done safely.

"I can't stop looking at ... ", pr0n would be inspected prior to being
rejected, of course.

"Déja vu", as close as I could get to showing a pivotal event in my
life that did not get photographically recorded for whatever reasons.

"Not my cup of tea," something I ordinarily disregard, ignore, or
actively avoid photographing.

"Creeps in this petty pace ... ", the personification or
objectification of "slow" (might want to institute an extended
deadline for this one).

/Et alii/, /ad nauseam/.

Resp'y,

Signature

Frank ess

"A merry heart doeth good like a medicine:
but a broken spirit drieth the bones."
~Proverbs 17:22~

tony cooper - 04 Sep 2008 02:29 GMT
>"Creeps in this petty pace ... ", the personification or
>objectification of "slow" (might want to institute an extended
>deadline for this one).

Plenty of time since the line before "Creeps in this petty pace..." is
the due date:  "Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow".

Also in that scene:  "Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."   Remind you of some of the posts here?

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Robert Coe - 04 Sep 2008 02:49 GMT
: > - Personally I feel bigger is better.  I like 1280 longest side,
: >   rounded down to 1200 was fine with me.  I like to be able to
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
: I think, given the comments from others, that we might back it down a
: little to accommodate their poverty.   Uh, I mean smaller monitors.

Why? These days every browser incorporates a photo viewer that will size a
picture to the available area. The only legitimate constraints on picture size
are download time and space on the server. A user may, of course, elect to use
a lower resolution if he doesn't want to make a higher-resolution version
freely available, but I see no obvious reason to require that.

Bob
Alan Browne - 04 Sep 2008 22:28 GMT
> : > - Personally I feel bigger is better.  I like 1280 longest side,
> : >   rounded down to 1200 was fine with me.  I like to be able to
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> a lower resolution if he doesn't want to make a higher-resolution version
> freely available, but I see no obvious reason to require that.

And the viewers that re-size it often introduce artifacts of various
kinds (generalized sampling algorithms that do poorly on contrasty
areas...)  ... Pbase looks best when the photo is presented as the photo
edited it for presentation.

Signature

-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
--        r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
--      [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
--                   e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Paul Furman - 04 Sep 2008 22:50 GMT
>> : > - Personally I feel bigger is better.  I like 1280 longest side,
>> : >   rounded down to 1200 was fine with me.  I like to be able to
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> areas...)  ... Pbase looks best when the photo is presented as the photo
> edited it for presentation.

Flickr makes a mess of pre-sharpened images by reducing them quite small
(my originals are only 640 wide) then oversharpening.

Signature

Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

tony cooper - 05 Sep 2008 00:14 GMT
>>> : > - Personally I feel bigger is better.  I like 1280 longest side,
>>> : >   rounded down to 1200 was fine with me.  I like to be able to
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>Flickr makes a mess of pre-sharpened images by reducing them quite small
>(my originals are only 640 wide) then oversharpening.

I agree.  I've been trying various image hosts.  I've tried PBase, and
I'm not that excited about it.  I can use my provider's space and put
up a .html page, but that's not as easy as uploading to a dedicated
image host.  I usually put up only one image at a time.

I like PhotoBucket, but I try to keep that just for my eBay images.
Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Ken Nadvornick - 05 Sep 2008 04:50 GMT
> And the viewers that re-size it often introduce artifacts of various
> kinds (generalized sampling algorithms that do poorly on contrasty
> areas...)  ... Pbase looks best when the photo is presented as the
> photo[grapher] edited it for presentation.

Precisely.

This is the reason I won't look at anything other than "original" sizing when
I look at the SI.  Regardless of how the contributor chose to create their
image, I respect the fact that they presumably spent valuable time and effort
to make it the best they could submit - as do I.  So I owe it to them to look
carefully at it exactly as they intended for me to see it.  That's why my
personal preferred vertical size limit is 1000.  I also understand that others
may prefer more or less, given their individual screen resolutions.

I'd also bet that I'm not the only one here who sweats the details at that
level.  However, because my final presentation mode (a true
hold-it-in-your-hands wet darkroom print) is not native to a computer monitor,
I have a fair number of additional challenges each time around to get my
scanned digital reproductions to look anything like the
silver-toned-in-selenium prints I hold in my hands.  I don't always succeed.

Ken
Robert Coe - 06 Sep 2008 14:23 GMT
: > And the viewers that re-size it often introduce artifacts of various
: > kinds (generalized sampling algorithms that do poorly on contrasty
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
: personal preferred vertical size limit is 1000.  I also understand that others
: may prefer more or less, given their individual screen resolutions.

It's not unreasonable to specify an "original" image size (in pixels) that can
be displayed without further shrinking on most of the monitors on which the
image will be viewed. But failure to obey that constraint doesn't really
inconvenience anybody, since any modern browser will, if necessary, size the
image to fit the window in use. And any other sizes provided (thumbnail,
small, medium, large) are at the discretion of the moderator anyway, and the
submitter has little or no influence on those.

The important constraint, IMO, is file size, because that's what drives
storage cost and download time. Why can't everything else be safely left up to
the submitter?

Bob
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.