Call for mandates
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: 46.8 degrees photos are available for viewing
Next: Pack a Gun to Protect Valuables from Airline Theft or Loss?
From: Bruce on 29 Jan 2010 10:13 On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:23:05 -0500, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: >On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:29:03 +0000, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >: Just shoot anything you want. Don't worry about the mandate, because >: the person running the SI clearly doesn't. >: >: The last SI had several entries that quite clearly did not comply with >: the mandate, but they were still allowed. > >And you would know that how? None of us believes Please don't waste your time thinking that I care what you believe. The last mandate was as easy as could be. A very simple requirement for a focal length that gave the same angle of view as a 50mm lens on a 35mm film camera, or a full frame DSLR. Yet several people who submitted images either did not understand that very simple requirement, or simply didn't care. The SI submissions represent the very worst of photography by people who don't even understand the basics. As a result, they are extremely funny. ;-)
From: Tim Conway on 29 Jan 2010 10:42 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:fdu5m51cc5jothif6eatra8vdlu6lpnril(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:23:05 -0500, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: >>On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:29:03 +0000, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>: Just shoot anything you want. Don't worry about the mandate, because >>: the person running the SI clearly doesn't. >>: >>: The last SI had several entries that quite clearly did not comply with >>: the mandate, but they were still allowed. >> >>And you would know that how? None of us believes > > > Please don't waste your time thinking that I care what you believe. > > The last mandate was as easy as could be. A very simple requirement > for a focal length that gave the same angle of view as a 50mm lens on > a 35mm film camera, or a full frame DSLR. > > Yet several people who submitted images either did not understand that > very simple requirement, or simply didn't care. > > The SI submissions represent the very worst of photography by people > who don't even understand the basics. As a result, they are extremely > funny. ;-) Your constant belittling is representing the worst of usenet.
From: Bruce on 29 Jan 2010 11:02 On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:42:05 -0500, "Tim Conway" <tconway_113(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:fdu5m51cc5jothif6eatra8vdlu6lpnril(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:23:05 -0500, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: >>>On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:29:03 +0000, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>: Just shoot anything you want. Don't worry about the mandate, because >>>: the person running the SI clearly doesn't. >>>: >>>: The last SI had several entries that quite clearly did not comply with >>>: the mandate, but they were still allowed. >>> >>>And you would know that how? None of us believes >> >> >> Please don't waste your time thinking that I care what you believe. >> >> The last mandate was as easy as could be. A very simple requirement >> for a focal length that gave the same angle of view as a 50mm lens on >> a 35mm film camera, or a full frame DSLR. >> >> Yet several people who submitted images either did not understand that >> very simple requirement, or simply didn't care. >> >> The SI submissions represent the very worst of photography by people >> who don't even understand the basics. As a result, they are extremely >> funny. ;-) > >Your constant belittling is representing the worst of usenet. Don't be silly, there is far worse to be found. I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is actually a gross insult to capable photographers.
From: John McWilliams on 29 Jan 2010 11:40 Bruce wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:42:05 -0500, "Tim Conway" >> Your constant belittling is representing the worst of usenet. > > > Don't be silly, there is far worse to be found. > > I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is > actually a gross insult to capable photographers. Then you can start changing that by: A. Posting your own superior images; B. Providing solid (not merely insulting) feedback/critique of other's pathetic photos . As if. -- lsmft
From: Tim Conway on 29 Jan 2010 11:45
"John McWilliams" <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:hjv31s$1jk$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Bruce wrote: >> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:42:05 -0500, "Tim Conway" > >>> Your constant belittling is representing the worst of usenet. >> >> >> Don't be silly, there is far worse to be found. I'm really being very >> gentle here, because the execrable SI is >> actually a gross insult to capable photographers. > > Then you can start changing that by: > > A. Posting your own superior images; > B. Providing solid (not merely insulting) feedback/critique of other's > pathetic photos . > > As if. Hey, are you callin' my photos pathetic? ....just joking, some of them are. <grin> |