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: tony cooper on 29 Jan 2010 14:52 On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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. Your opinion would carry more weight if we knew - from seeing your work - that you are one of the capable photographers. I don't think you necessarily need to be a capable photographer to effectively critique photographs. You don't need to be artist to judge that a painting is badly done. You don't need to be a published author to know that a story is badly written. You don't need to be a good photographer to see that a specific photo is badly composed. However, when you make only broad-brush statements that all of the SI stuff is excrement, you really have to establish your own credentials to be taken seriously. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Robert Coe on 2 Feb 2010 18:44 On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: : 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. You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who think they've been insulted? Bob
From: Robert Coe on 2 Feb 2010 18:50 On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:17:57 -0600, sheesh <shees(a)whydotheybother.org> wrote: : On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:10:19 -0000, "Calvin Sambrook" : <csambrook(a)bigfoot.com> wrote: : : >"Bowser" <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote in message : >news:iqmbl5hlmnbmvjvrns2t7hupjooc19m32t(a)4ax.com... : >>I have one idea: Facescape-find a face with a lot of character and : >> shoot it in excrutiating detail, up cose. No points for beauty, lots : >> of points for character. : >> : >> Any other ideas? : > : >Bowser, have you decided on the mandate yet? My replacement camera's turned : >up and I want something to shoot at. : : You need someone else to give you ideas for a reason to use a camera? : : Return your replacement and any other cameras you might have. Put them in : the hands of someone who can make use of them. You know, people who can : think for themselves. How many humorless gas bags do we need in this newsgroup? They keep coming out of the woodwork like termites. Bob
From: Bruce on 3 Feb 2010 03:40 On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:44:53 -0500, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: >On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >: >: I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is >: actually a gross insult to capable photographers. > >You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who think >they've been insulted? There is quite a long list of capable photographers who participated in the early days of the SI. They left both the SI and the SI's sponsoring newsgroup, never to return. You should hear what they think of the SI, and particularly of Alan Browne's contributions! If you think I am overly critical, their comments make mine look very gentle indeed.
From: Bruce on 3 Feb 2010 13:14
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 12:00:22 -0500, "Tim Conway" <tconway_113(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >All that whining and complaining they do sounds like just sour grapes to me. >Look at all the constructive things they could do if they weren't being so >negative. The constructive things they could do? Such as working as photographers? Over half of them do. The rest are serious amateurs who have worked very hard to improve, and most if not all of those now sell their work via exhibitions, their own web sites, or stock agencies. What unifies them as a group is a desire to improve by sharing, honest critique and constructive criticism. The last two are completely absent from the SI, where the participants automatically offer their warm congratulations for the latest round of appallingly incompetent snapshots. The SI hit a nadir when several participants completely failed to understand the simplest of mandates. But their snapshots were still included, because no-one takes the mandates seriously. Anyone who takes a few minutes to look at SIs over the years can see how overall standards have plummeted, and how those few who have participated throughout have shown no improvement whatsoever, in some cases actually getting worse. http://www.pbase.com/shootin/root |