 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / February 2010[SI] New Mandates
OK, here's the deal: in an attempt to encourage participation, the SI Dictator has decided to announce multiple mandates with a "capture date" so you can shoot for multiple mandates, and take more time for the harder mandates. With that in mind, here's the next three mandates, all of which have a capture date starting today: Lines and Intersections: self explanatory. Due March 7th, 2010. F8 and be there: while any phot shot at F8 is acceptable, the hope is that you'll submit something journalistic, a photo where you were in the right place at the right time and just fired at will. Due April 11th, 2010 Facescape: a merciless shot of a person's face in high detail. No animals, building facades, just human beings, please! The human face is a source of endless interest, so find someone interesting, shoot them, and show us the results! Due May 16th, 2010. The shoot-in is located here: http://www.pbase.com/shootin The rulez are here: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage I'll have sample shots and galleries posted within a day or two. >OK, here's the deal: in an attempt to encourage participation, the SI >Dictator has decided to announce multiple mandates with a "capture [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >I'll have sample shots and galleries posted within a day or two. Has Bruce approved of these mandates?  SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>OK, here's the deal: in an attempt to encourage participation, the SI >>Dictator has decided to announce multiple mandates with a "capture [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Has Bruce approved of these mandates? Yes. Bruce and I met and discussed these mandates at length. After several marathon sessions with heated arguments lasting countless hours on end, Bruce and I finally agreed on the mandates and capture dates. The duration of these sessions is why the mandates were late in coming. >>>OK, here's the deal: in an attempt to encourage participation, the SI >>>Dictator has decided to announce multiple mandates with a "capture [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >dates. The duration of these sessions is why the mandates were late in >coming. Just to let you know, I'm volunteering to verify Bruce's claims that people who enter the SI can't follow directions. I'm currently looking for photo opportunities in "Circles and Arcs", "F/16 And Away", and "Footscape". With all the criticism heaped on Bruce lately, he deserves to be right on *something*. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>OK, here's the deal: in an attempt to encourage participation, the SI >>>>Dictator has decided to announce multiple mandates with a "capture [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >With all the criticism heaped on Bruce lately, he deserves to be right >on *something*. Congratulations! You just named the next three mandates after Facescape! : >>>>OK, here's the deal: in an attempt to encourage participation, the SI : >>>>Dictator has decided to announce multiple mandates with a "capture [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] : Congratulations! You just named the next three mandates after : Facescape! As it happens, I've got "Footscape" covered. ;^) Bob >>Has Bruce approved of these mandates? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >dates. The duration of these sessions is why the mandates were late in >coming. ROTFL!!! My approval was only reluctantly given, on the basis of a solemn promise by Bowser that any entries that did not conform to the requirements of the mandate would not be allowed. Isn't that right, Bowser? After all, we wouldn't want another embarrassing fiasco like the last time, now would we? >>> Has Bruce approved of these mandates? >> Yes. Bruce and I met and discussed these mandates at length. After [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Isn't that right, Bowser? After all, we wouldn't want another > embarrassing fiasco like the last time, now would we? Bruce- I truly do hope you'll submit some stuff this time. Then maybe we can get Alan to shut up about all the past sh.t he brings up - let's let the past stay there. Signaturejohn mcwilliams >>>> Has Bruce approved of these mandates? >>> Yes. Bruce and I met and discussed these mandates at length. After [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >get Alan to shut up about all the past sh.t he brings up - let's let the >past stay there. I really don't care if Bruce submits anything. And, I don't expect him to. He's put himself out on a limb in the newsgroups, and allowing us to judge an image of his would be the saw. What I would like to see is how Bruce would critique the photos he thinks are crap. I'd like to see how he thinks this one should be cropped better, how that one should have been shot at a higher or lower f/stop, or how one could have been better composed. It would be interesting to see if he actually has an eye for photos. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>> Has Bruce approved of these mandates? >>>> Yes. Bruce and I met and discussed these mandates at length. After [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > lower f/stop, or how one could have been better composed. It would be > interesting to see if he actually has an eye for photos. Only if it is a "noisy" shot of a train in bad light. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >>>Has Bruce approved of these mandates? >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Isn't that right, Bowser? After all, we wouldn't want another >embarrassing fiasco like the last time, now would we? I thought we discussed this at our committee meeting? Only those that submit get to complain, correct? >>>>Has Bruce approved of these mandates? >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >I thought we discussed this at our committee meeting? Only those that >submit get to complain, correct? When it comes to evading the issue of the entries that don't comply with the mandate, you are the ultimate professional. Obviously, you were a very good choice to run the SI. So if people can routinely submit entries that don't comply with the mandate in one or more major respects, and we still see them on the SI, why bother with the mandates at all? I don't expect you to answer that one either. ;-) >>>>> Has Bruce approved of these mandates? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > I don't expect you to answer that one either. ;-) It seems the entry which truly doesn't comply, is the one which isn't submitted. Therefore, given your absence from the SI, other than bitching, we have yet to see a submission from you which meets any mandate. There was certainly a degree of confusion regarding the last mandate, and those who submitted outside of the strict letter of the 50mm, 35mm, "normal" concept of the mandate, did so in good faith. Remember the SI is not some sort of competition with cash prizes & trophies, there was no cheating per se, so your bitching is a reflection of some argumentative streak in your character. Bowser has taken on the running of SI for the enjoyment of those who participate, not to receive the scorn of somebody such as you who chooses not to. It seems we should be grateful he does what nobody else cares to. ...and the mandates are worth bothering with to push us to think outside of what be normal for each of us. Not every submission should be considered a gallery exhibition piece, I know mine aren't, but I have learned from those who submit great shots. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >Bowser has taken on the running of SI for the enjoyment of those who >participate, not to receive the scorn of somebody such as you who >chooses not to. It seems we should be grateful he does what nobody else >cares to. Yes, you should be grateful that the person running the SI is just another in a long list of people who have been completely dedicated to maintaining the SI's near-rock bottom standards, and taking whatever opportunities arise to make them even lower. >> Bowser has taken on the running of SI for the enjoyment of those who >> participate, not to receive the scorn of somebody such as you who [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > maintaining the SI's near-rock bottom standards, and taking whatever > opportunities arise to make them even lower. What standards? If you check http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage you will find the "standards" are pretty much limited to the following: The shooter's interpretation of the mandate, even if it might not be obvious to some viewers. File size, no larger than 300kB. An attempt to keep to the naming convention. From the very beginning the SI was for entertainment, fun if you will, not some sort of lofty pseudo-intellectual gallery competition. Critique and comments have always been a part of the SI, and rather than being some sort of mutual admiration society, it has been a forum where constructive criticism has highlighted the poor submissions and demanded explanation of the vague interpretation of a mandate. Certainly some have questioned different aspects of the submissions and added their suggestions. Where the submissions have been excellent they have been deserving of the complements they have received. My submissions have been panned and some (few) have been complimented. That is part of what I expected when I entered the SI. I have chosen not to take the comments as personal slights, and I do not feel I am competing with any of the other participants. There are too many individuals in this group who are far better photographers than I am, or might ever be. That does not mean I am not capable of learning from each. You should just demonstrate your ability to lift the quality of the SI by submitting a few of your fine interpretations of the current set of mandates. You have plenty of time to get something together for any of them, but I doubt you would have the courage to join us. It seems you are content to just sit back and complain about the your feelings regarding the current state of the SI. ...and again, what standards? SignatureRegards, Savageduck >>> Bowser has taken on the running of SI for the enjoyment of those who >>> participate, not to receive the scorn of somebody such as you who [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >What standards? My point, exactly. There aren't any. >>>> Bowser has taken on the running of SI for the enjoyment of those who >>>> participate, not to receive the scorn of somebody such as you who [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > My point, exactly. There aren't any. Given that your edit to my response places it entirely out of context, I would just repeat what I had said; "What standards? If you check http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage you will find the "standards" are pretty much limited to the following: The shooter's interpretation of the mandate, even if it might not be obvious to some viewers. File size, no larger than 300kB. An attempt to keep to the naming convention." Your argument is unimpressive, and you certainly have no credentials to be critical of any aspect of what is an entertaining enterprise. There seem to be few standards of any kind, photographic or decency, you have been able to maintain. Your opinion it seems is not worthy of any consideration, as it is without merit, and has no value as any sort of constructive critique. So it can be relegated to cyber purgatory. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >>> What standards? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >File size, no larger than 300kB. >An attempt to keep to the naming convention." There's a lot more than that on the rulz page. You have quoted "how" to enter the SI but you haven't even begun to address "why". When the SI was established, mutual improvement was very much the foundation of the whole thing. Over six years later, the rulz, hazy though they are, still emphasise that point. Perhaps SI participants should refresh their memories and read the rulz again. For some, it may be the first time, given how many of the SI entrants seem to ignore them completely. >Your argument is unimpressive, and you certainly have no credentials to >be critical of any aspect of what is an entertaining enterprise. There [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >without merit, and has no value as any sort of constructive critique. >So it can be relegated to cyber purgatory. I hope you don't think that such a torrent of personal abuse qualifies you for the moral high ground, because from your standpoint deep in the gutter, you would need a very long ladder to help you climb to the dizzy heights of cyber purgatory. >>>> What standards? >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > There's a lot more than that on the rulz page. You have quoted "how" > to enter the SI but you haven't even begun to address "why". I would refer you to the first line on the rulz page; "The shoot-in isn't a conventional competition, or even a competition at all. The first goal is entertainment, so there can be any number of "winners."" The 4th paragraph reads; "Participants will endeavor to make a photo that is connected to the mandate. Interpretation, reaction, illustration, whatever. Connected." > When the SI was established, mutual improvement was very much the > foundation of the whole thing. Over six years later, the rulz, hazy > though they are, still emphasise that point. Hey! we agree on something! > Perhaps SI participants > should refresh their memories and read the rulz again. For some, it > may be the first time, given how many of the SI entrants seem to > ignore them completely. See 4th paragraph above. >> Your argument is unimpressive, and you certainly have no credentials to >> be critical of any aspect of what is an entertaining enterprise. There [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the gutter, you would need a very long ladder to help you climb to the > dizzy heights of cyber purgatory. Me dousing you with a torrent of personal abuse? That is amusing coming from you. As for moral high ground, this is a newsgroup and the playing field is pretty level, with the exception of the holes you have dug for yourself. As for your assertion that my standpoint is deep in the gutter, I would challenge you to at least provide photographic evidence of that. You have provided us plenty of evidence to support your familiarity the gutter. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >>>>> What standards? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > challenge you to at least provide photographic evidence of that. You have > provided us plenty of evidence to support your familiarity the gutter. Careful. You and I may nest be accused of being un-American. We are not engrossed in the Superbowl. Actually, I have probably already lost my bet. SignaturePeter > Careful. You and I may nest be accused of being un-American. We are not > engrossed in the Superbowl. > Actually, I have probably already lost my bet. That's OK, we should be able to get all the good commercials from YouTube. That is the point of the Superbowl after all. :-) SignatureRegards, Savageduck >> Careful. You and I may nest be accused of being un-American. We are >> not engrossed in the Superbowl. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That is the point of the Superbowl after all. :-) Well, I am so "engrossed", but also doing news....thank God for replays, and DVRs!. What did you think of the trick photography in the Budweiser-truck-over-the-human-bridge thingamabob? Signaturejohn mcwilliams >>> Careful. You and I may nest be accused of being un-American. We are not >>> engrossed in the Superbowl. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > What did you think of the trick photography in the > Budweiser-truck-over-the-human-bridge thingamabob? Well they needed the canine cheerleader. Amazing what you can do with a green screen. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >As for your assertion that my standpoint is deep in the >gutter, I would challenge you to at least provide photographic evidence >of that. I don't think I - or anyone else - could possibly stoop that low. >>>>>Has Bruce approved of these mandates? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >I don't expect you to answer that one either. ;-) Whether or not the pic fits the mandate is fleshed out in the critiques. As you know, images are subject to interpretation, and we all see something different. However, if you are the type of shooter who must slavishly follow a pre-set visual definition, then the shoot-in is not for you. It's for people who actually shoot pictures, submit them, and then see what others think. Clearly, you are one of the few not suited for the shoot-in. >However, if you are the type of shooter >who must slavishly follow a pre-set visual definition, then the >shoot-in is not for you. Except when shooting for stock, my work follows a brief that is set by, or agreed with the client. If I don't work within the brief, I won't get paid. And since the majority of my income comes from repeat customers, referrals and recommendations, my business would rapidly go downhill. You might ask what relevance that has to the SI. Well, when the SI started, the intention was that people submitting images to the SI would also work to a brief. The idea was to make the experience similar to that of a professional, in order to stretch people and help them to improve. Laudable aims. The problem was the "brief" became a "mandate". Now the word "mandate" means an order, or a decree. It suggests a lot less flexibility than a brief. In other words, it is even more strict. However, those running the SI and submitting images to it took it to mean quite the opposite, something far more relaxed than a brief. A theme perhaps. But even that is routinely ignored, and people submit any crappy old snapshot whether it relates to the mandate or not. As a result, the SI's standards get lower and lower. Anyone with any ability takes it elsewhere and leaves the job of plumbing the depths of mediocrity to those who are left behind, who have absolutely no interest in self-improvement. Why on earth would any competent photographer wish to waste their time participating in such a complete mess? >> However, if you are the type of shooter >> who must slavishly follow a pre-set visual definition, then the [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Why on earth would any competent photographer wish to waste their time > participating in such a complete mess? To educate and illuminate the great unwashed. But thank you for the good overview. == Signaturejohn mcwilliams >>However, if you are the type of shooter >>who must slavishly follow a pre-set visual definition, then the [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Why on earth would any competent photographer wish to waste their time > participating in such a complete mess? Since you are so competent why don't you give us a link to you stock photos, so that we may all learn and practice the self improvement you talk about. . Better yet, do you have a web page we can learn from? SignaturePeter >>>However, if you are the type of shooter >>>who must slavishly follow a pre-set visual definition, then the [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >Since you are so competent I make no claims of competence. None. >why don't you give us a link to you stock photos, >so that we may all learn and practice the self improvement you talk about. Anyone who has a genuine interest in the subjects I shoot will have absolutely no problem finding them. >Better yet, do you have a web page we can learn from? I have several web pages. Anyone who has a genuine interest in the subjects I shoot will have absolutely no problem finding them. >>>>However, if you are the type of shooter >>>>who must slavishly follow a pre-set visual definition, then the [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > I have several web pages. Anyone who has a genuine interest in the > subjects I shoot will have absolutely no problem finding them. I have such interest, but have problems with Google. We all need help in finding your work. Please, great one, give us the help we need. Surely it takes less time to post a link, then make the comments you have made. SignaturePeter >>>>>However, if you are the type of shooter >>>>>who must slavishly follow a pre-set visual definition, then the [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >I have such interest, but have problems with Google. We all need help in >finding your work. If you had a genuine interest in the subjects I shoot , you would have found them already. They are very easy to find; they generate opportunities for more work than I can ever hope to do. But if your interest is frivolous, you may never find them, because they are emphatically *not* aimed at people like you. If there is something that you need to learn, buy a suitable book, read it and learn from it, or take a suitable course and learn everything you can, or put some of your images up for critique at one of the dozens of sites that offer it, then learn from that. I doubt there is anything I can teach you, and I have no interest whatsoever in trying. I shoot images for money. It pays the mortgage. Photography is not my hobby. It isn't something I do outside working hours. >>>>>>However, if you are the type of shooter >>>>>>who must slavishly follow a pre-set visual definition, then the [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > mortgage. Photography is not my hobby. It isn't something I do > outside working hours. I believe you. Sure I do. I forgot that your fame as a professional photographer is so great that you have no need to make it easy for creative directors to easily find your work. Creative directors have nothing to do but spend extra time to locate your work. You must be so good. Candidly, you are so full of s--t it is coming out of your ears. <\end of my feeding of you> SignaturePeter > I doubt there is anything I can teach you, and I have no interest > whatsoever in trying. I shoot images for money. It pays the > mortgage. Photography is not my hobby. It isn't something I do > outside working hours. Then it seems you are contributing to the wrong newsgroups. Let's see, rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.equipment.35mm, rec.photo.digital.slr-systems. Couldn't you find a "pro" version of any of those groups? Is it any wonder you look down on all of us recreational, hobbyist, amateur photographers with such scorn. ...and you are so self absorb with your "professionalism" there is no doubt you have no intention of providing constructive criticism, or advices to lead any of us lowly hobbyists to improve our photography. What a pompous a.s! SignatureRegards, Savageduck >Then it seems you are contributing to the wrong newsgroups. Let's see, >rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.equipment.35mm, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >What a pompous a.s! More personal abuse ... That hole you're in is getting deeper and deeper. Keep digging! >> Then it seems you are contributing to the wrong newsgroups. Let's see, >> rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.equipment.35mm, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > That hole you're in is getting deeper and deeper. Keep digging! I couldn't get any deeper after I tripped over you, hogging the deepest part of the hole. SignatureRegards, Savageduck > If you had a genuine interest in the subjects I shoot , you would have > found them already. They are very easy to find; they generate > opportunities for more work than I can ever hope to do. Y'know, watching Bruce weasel out of providing links is actually kind of funny. And pathetic, really. Bruce, break out the Brownie Starmite and shoot a few. Maybe B&H still has some 127 roll film left. >> If you had a genuine interest in the subjects I shoot , you would have >> found them already. They are very easy to find; they generate [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > funny. And pathetic, really. Bruce, break out the Brownie Starmite and > shoot a few. Maybe B&H still has some 127 roll film left. I disagree. To "weasel out" implies some type of logical argument. Bruce has not weaseled out of anything. He has simply refused to provide links, without any logical justification whatsoever. SignaturePeter >>> If you had a genuine interest in the subjects I shoot , you would have >>> found them already. They are very easy to find; they generate [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >not weaseled out of anything. He has simply refused to provide links, >without any logical justification whatsoever. "I don't want to" has a certain amount of logic to it. I do agree, though, that a flat refusal is not a "weasel". SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> If you had a genuine interest in the subjects I shoot , you would have >>> found them already. They are very easy to find; they generate [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >not weaseled out of anything. He has simply refused to provide links, >without any logical justification whatsoever. There is no logical justification for giving you links to my work. You aren't going to buy anything, and I am not interested in your opinion. So get over it. Stop wasting your time posting here. Your time would be far better spent learning about photography. >>>> If you had a genuine interest in the subjects I shoot , you would have >>>> found them already. They are very easy to find; they generate [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>not weaseled out of anything. He has simply refused to provide links, >>without any logical justification whatsoever. > There is no logical justification for giving you links to my work. You > aren't going to buy anything, and I am not interested in your opinion. You often explain to the posters here that you have no interest in their opinions and consider them ignorant fools. So why do you bother to post so many of your opinions at such length? Isn't there anyone anywhere who actually wants to listen to you? SignatureChris Malcolm >>>> If you had a genuine interest in the subjects I shoot , you would have >>>> found them already. They are very easy to find; they generate [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > There is no logical justification for giving you links to my work. You > aren't going to buy anything, and I am not interested in your opinion. Weasel. > So get over it. Stop wasting your time posting here. Your time would > be far better spent learning about photography. Speaking of wasting time... Weasel. >>>> If you had a genuine interest in the subjects I shoot , you would have >>>> found them already. They are very easy to find; they generate [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > So get over it. Stop wasting your time posting here. It seems the time has come for you to take your own advice. There is no logical reason for you to participate in any of these "rec." photo newsgroups. > Your time would > be far better spent learning about photography. Since you have nothing to contribute, it seems your time would be far better spent in further dedication to your "profession." Heaping your scorn on us is just another waste of your time, and you are certainly not teaching us anything. SignatureRegards, Savageduck On 2/9/10 4:45 AM, in article 7ue2n5p2psorql0t4to14hscd7jh6ucc90@4ax.com, >>>> If you had a genuine interest in the subjects I shoot , you would have >>>> found them already. They are very easy to find; they generate [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > So get over it. Stop wasting your time posting here. Your time would > be far better spent learning about photography. Hey Bruce, we're all awaiting your critique of these... <http://www.npr.org/blogs/pictureshow/2010/02/an_astronaut_tweets_photos_fro .html?sc=fb&cc=fp> But we all know that you could do it better, doncha thimk!?! >>>> If you had a genuine interest in the subjects I shoot , you would have >>>> found them already. They are very easy to find; they generate [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > So get over it. Stop wasting your time posting here. Your time would > be far better spent learning about photography. Mirrors are not expensive. SignaturePeter >>However, if you are the type of shooter >>who must slavishly follow a pre-set visual definition, then the [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Why on earth would any competent photographer wish to waste their time > participating in such a complete mess? to make the trolls look, so we can say "made you look." Seriously, Bruce, Tony, whatever you name is, troll elsewhere. : >>Has Bruce approved of these mandates? : > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] : Isn't that right, Bowser? After all, we wouldn't want another : embarrassing fiasco like the last time, now would we? What embarrassing fiasco? Who was embarrassed? The only thing embarrassing in this thread is you. Bob > : >>Has Bruce approved of these mandates? > : > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > in > this thread is you. Wrong. I should also be embarrassed for bothering to respond to him. SignaturePeter >> : >>Has Bruce approved of these mandates? >> : > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Wrong. I should also be embarrassed for bothering to respond to him. We are an honorable group. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >We are an honorable group. Spoken from the gutter. >>We are an honorable group. > > Spoken from the gutter. I was going to make some sarcastic comment about you being able to raise yourself up to the gutter, or something like that, but I decided not to. Instead, I decided to suggest that those of us in the gutter resist the urge to look into the abyss in the hopes of spotting Bruce. I always take the high road. > : >>Has Bruce approved of these mandates? > : > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > in > this thread is you. Besides, he talks like fiascos are a bad thing. Hardly. I love them. |
Reply to this Message |
 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
|
©2010 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.