Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
SI: Pointer to current rulz?
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Chemiker
May 8, 2012, 3:06:35 PM5/8/12
to
Aside from the deadlines and size limits, what other rules are in
place? Cropping, brightness adjustment, where's the limit?
Alex
place? Cropping, brightness adjustment, where's the limit?
Alex
Tim Conway
May 8, 2012, 3:18:48 PM5/8/12
to
"Chemiker" <prussia...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:kjriq7l11jpi394f4...@4ax.com...
> Aside from the deadlines and size limits, what other rules are in
> place? Cropping, brightness adjustment, where's the limit?
>
PS is ok within moderation. Here's the link to the rulz page:
> place? Cropping, brightness adjustment, where's the limit?
>
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage
Chemiker
May 8, 2012, 3:33:18 PM5/8/12
to
Alex
SI Committee
May 8, 2012, 5:53:06 PM5/8/12
to
On 2012-05-08 15:06 , Chemiker wrote:
> Aside from the deadlines and size limits, what other rules are in
> place? Cropping, brightness adjustment, where's the limit?
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage
> Aside from the deadlines and size limits, what other rules are in
> place? Cropping, brightness adjustment, where's the limit?
In a nutshell cropping is allowed, as are adjustments to
tone/brightness/contrast, USM, etc.
HDR is acceptable whether in-camera or post-processed from several
images. I'd just caution against over-doing-it.
Extensive digital manipulation is not welcome and certainly is not the
goal of the SI.
PS: Posts referring to the SI should have SI in square brackets:
[SI] Pointer to current rules.
--
The Committee
tony cooper
May 8, 2012, 6:06:08 PM5/8/12
to
size limits. Do anything you want to the image.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Savageduck
May 8, 2012, 7:26:05 PM5/8/12
to
add details of camera & film used when submitting a scan of your
non-digital shot.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
PeterN
May 8, 2012, 8:03:00 PM5/8/12
to
Is it converting from color to monochrome?
Is it: major color correction; noise removal; blurring; or selective
and/or overall sharpening?
Is it: removing a skin blemish; a people blemish; an object blemish? How
about composites, solarizations, and posterizations. (all of which I
have done in the darkroom.)
etc.
Please don't go there. Allow artistic freedom.
Once I am back in shooting form, I plan to submit any image that is
compatible with the theme. Remember this is an art form, not a pure
reporting format.
--
Peter
gpsman
May 9, 2012, 7:44:22 AM5/9/12
to
On May 8, 8:03 pm, PeterN <peter....@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 5:53 PM, SI Committee wrote:
>
> > HDR is acceptable whether in-camera or post-processed from several
> > images. I'd just caution against over-doing-it.
>
> > Extensive digital manipulation is not welcome and certainly is not the
> > goal of the SI.
>
> On 5/8/2012 5:53 PM, SI Committee wrote:
>
> > HDR is acceptable whether in-camera or post-processed from several
> > images. I'd just caution against over-doing-it.
>
> > Extensive digital manipulation is not welcome and certainly is not the
> > goal of the SI.
>
> Please define "extensive digital manipulation."
My definition would include HDR.
> How
> about composites, solarizations, and posterizations. (all of which I
> have done in the darkroom.)
> etc.
>
> Please don't go there. Allow artistic freedom.
"assignment". "Artistic" manipulation is... something else.
> Once I am back in shooting form, I plan to submit any image that is
> compatible with the theme. Remember this is an art form, not a pure
> reporting format.
Were it me, I'd spec a mandate and 5 minutes max. for "adjustments",
and anyone who didn't want to participate would be welcome to not
participate, and whatever images that were in my opinion over-
manipulated would go straight in the bit bucket.
I sure as hell would not open a discussion of opinions of what the
mandates should be. I'm pretty sure moderating the [SI] in my manner
would be enough work for free, for me.
-----
- gpsman
Chemiker
May 9, 2012, 10:30:15 AM5/9/12
to
On Tue, 08 May 2012 17:53:06 -0400, SI Committee
<si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote:
>Extensive digital manipulation is not welcome and certainly is not the
>goal of the SI.
Are we getting into X-rated territory here?
<si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote:
>Extensive digital manipulation is not welcome and certainly is not the
>goal of the SI.
Just askin'
Alex
Pablo
May 9, 2012, 10:33:26 AM5/9/12
to
Chemiker escribió:
My porn collection feels insulted.
--
Pablo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
--
Pablo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
PeterN
May 9, 2012, 10:41:14 AM5/9/12
to
On 5/9/2012 7:44 AM, gpsman wrote:
> On May 8, 8:03 pm, PeterN<peter....@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 5:53 PM, SI Committee wrote:
>>
>>> HDR is acceptable whether in-camera or post-processed from several
>>> images. I'd just caution against over-doing-it.
>>
>>> Extensive digital manipulation is not welcome and certainly is not the
>>> goal of the SI.
>>
>> Please define "extensive digital manipulation."
>
> My definition would include HDR.
>
>> How
>> about composites, solarizations, and posterizations. (all of which I
>> have done in the darkroom.)
>> etc.
>>
>> Please don't go there. Allow artistic freedom.
>
> I disagree. This seems to be intended a "shooting" [SI]
> "assignment". "Artistic" manipulation is... something else.
>
>> Once I am back in shooting form, I plan to submit any image that is
>> compatible with the theme. Remember this is an art form, not a pure
>> reporting format.
>
> I disagree. It is whatever the moderator says it is.
>
> Were it me, I'd spec a mandate and 5 minutes max. for "adjustments",
> and anyone who didn't want to participate would be welcome to not
> participate, and whatever images that were in my opinion over-
> manipulated would go straight in the bit bucket.
Always your right.
> On May 8, 8:03 pm, PeterN<peter....@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 5:53 PM, SI Committee wrote:
>>
>>> HDR is acceptable whether in-camera or post-processed from several
>>> images. I'd just caution against over-doing-it.
>>
>>> Extensive digital manipulation is not welcome and certainly is not the
>>> goal of the SI.
>>
>> Please define "extensive digital manipulation."
>
> My definition would include HDR.
>
>> How
>> about composites, solarizations, and posterizations. (all of which I
>> have done in the darkroom.)
>> etc.
>>
>> Please don't go there. Allow artistic freedom.
>
> I disagree. This seems to be intended a "shooting" [SI]
> "assignment". "Artistic" manipulation is... something else.
>
>> Once I am back in shooting form, I plan to submit any image that is
>> compatible with the theme. Remember this is an art form, not a pure
>> reporting format.
>
> I disagree. It is whatever the moderator says it is.
>
> Were it me, I'd spec a mandate and 5 minutes max. for "adjustments",
> and anyone who didn't want to participate would be welcome to not
> participate, and whatever images that were in my opinion over-
> manipulated would go straight in the bit bucket.
>
> I sure as hell would not open a discussion of opinions of what the
> mandates should be. I'm pretty sure moderating the [SI] in my manner
> would be enough work for free, for me.
items listed above in a darkroom. Just because I am using a digital
format doesn't mean there should be more restrictions.
--
Peter
gpsman
May 9, 2012, 11:53:34 AM5/9/12
to
On May 9, 10:41 am, PeterN <peter....@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
> On 5/9/2012 7:44 AM, gpsman wrote:
>
> > Were it me, I'd spec a mandate and 5 minutes max. for "adjustments"
>
> On 5/9/2012 7:44 AM, gpsman wrote:
>
> > Were it me, I'd spec a mandate and 5 minutes max. for "adjustments"
>
> I can do any of the
> items listed above in a darkroom. Just because I am using a digital
> format doesn't mean there should be more restrictions.
No more restrictions. I wouldn't care where, or how, or what, just do
> items listed above in a darkroom. Just because I am using a digital
> format doesn't mean there should be more restrictions.
it in 5 minutes.
Whatever, it best most resemble a "photograph", from a "camera".
That's just me and how I interpret the intent of the "contest". I
expect everyone to disagree.
-----
- gpsman
Chemiker
May 9, 2012, 2:05:38 PM5/9/12
to
On Wed, 09 May 2012 16:33:26 +0200, Pablo <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>Chemiker escribió:
>
>> On Tue, 08 May 2012 17:53:06 -0400, SI Committee
>> <si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Extensive digital manipulation is not welcome and certainly is not the
>>>goal of the SI.
>>
>> Are we getting into X-rated territory here?
>
>My porn collection feels insulted.
By digital manpulation?
>Chemiker escribió:
>
>> On Tue, 08 May 2012 17:53:06 -0400, SI Committee
>> <si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Extensive digital manipulation is not welcome and certainly is not the
>>>goal of the SI.
>>
>> Are we getting into X-rated territory here?
>
>My porn collection feels insulted.
SI Committee
May 9, 2012, 5:03:31 PM5/9/12
to
On 2012-05-09 07:44 , gpsman wrote:
> On May 8, 8:03 pm, PeterN <peter....@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 5:53 PM, SI Committee wrote:
>>
>>> HDR is acceptable whether in-camera or post-processed from several
>>> images. I'd just caution against over-doing-it.
>>
>>> Extensive digital manipulation is not welcome and certainly is not the
>>> goal of the SI.
>>
>> Please define "extensive digital manipulation."
>
> My definition would include HDR.
HDR was a film technique, albeit not common, so (if one refers to the
> On May 8, 8:03 pm, PeterN <peter....@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 5:53 PM, SI Committee wrote:
>>
>>> HDR is acceptable whether in-camera or post-processed from several
>>> images. I'd just caution against over-doing-it.
>>
>>> Extensive digital manipulation is not welcome and certainly is not the
>>> goal of the SI.
>>
>> Please define "extensive digital manipulation."
>
> My definition would include HDR.
founding SI discussions and "common darkroom technique") it is allowed.
But as we said, if one submits an extreme v. of HDR in the SI it is not
likely to be well received.
>> How
>> about composites, solarizations, and posterizations. (all of which I
>> have done in the darkroom.)
>> etc.
>>
>> Please don't go there. Allow artistic freedom.
>
> I disagree. This seems to be intended a "shooting" [SI]
> "assignment". "Artistic" manipulation is... something else.
which is about capture, not editing skills.
>> Once I am back in shooting form, I plan to submit any image that is
>> compatible with the theme. Remember this is an art form, not a pure
>> reporting format.
>
> I disagree. It is whatever the moderator says it is.
>
> Were it me, I'd spec a mandate and 5 minutes max. for "adjustments",
> and anyone who didn't want to participate would be welcome to not
> participate, and whatever images that were in my opinion over-
> manipulated would go straight in the bit bucket.
>
> I sure as hell would not open a discussion of opinions of what the
> mandates should be. I'm pretty sure moderating the [SI] in my manner
> would be enough work for free, for me.
than one case where a moderator thought a particular photo to be too
explicit sexually). There was at least one photo that was obviously
manipulated beyond capture with the addition of a feature that was
obviously fake. It was allowed in and roundly rejected in comments.
--
The Committee
Alan Browne
May 9, 2012, 5:14:26 PM5/9/12
to
Past moderators would not allow nudity. I would as long as it is not
vulgar/obscene or otherwise offensive.
--
"A person with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds."
-Samuel Clemens.
James Silverton
May 9, 2012, 6:01:03 PM5/9/12
to
On 5/9/2012 5:14 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-05-09 10:30 , Chemiker wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 May 2012 17:53:06 -0400, SI Committee
>> <si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Extensive digital manipulation is not welcome and certainly is not the
>>> goal of the SI.
>>
>> Are we getting into X-rated territory here?
>
> ;-)
>
> Past moderators would not allow nudity. I would as long as it is not
> vulgar/obscene or otherwise offensive.
>
>
Ah, a disciple of Justice Potter who could not define obscenity but knew
> On 2012-05-09 10:30 , Chemiker wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 May 2012 17:53:06 -0400, SI Committee
>> <si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Extensive digital manipulation is not welcome and certainly is not the
>>> goal of the SI.
>>
>> Are we getting into X-rated territory here?
>
> ;-)
>
> Past moderators would not allow nudity. I would as long as it is not
> vulgar/obscene or otherwise offensive.
>
>
it when he saw it!
--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
Extraneous "not" in Reply To.
tony cooper
May 9, 2012, 6:02:16 PM5/9/12
to
specific rules. In the current format, it's photo sharing of images
somewhat related to the mandate according to the interpretation of the
shooter.
Considering the turn-out in both submission of images and discussion
of the images posted, the prime objective of the moderator should be
keep it simple in order to keep it going. Turning away images should
not be a consideration.
About those cash prizes...sponsors are welcome. I think Alan will
accept your PayPal contribution.
Alan Browne
May 9, 2012, 6:18:39 PM5/9/12
to
On 2012-05-09 18:01 , James Silverton wrote:
> On 5/9/2012 5:14 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2012-05-09 10:30 , Chemiker wrote:
>>> On Tue, 08 May 2012 17:53:06 -0400, SI Committee
>>> <si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Extensive digital manipulation is not welcome and certainly is not the
>>>> goal of the SI.
>>>
>>> Are we getting into X-rated territory here?
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>> Past moderators would not allow nudity. I would as long as it is not
>> vulgar/obscene or otherwise offensive.
>>
>>
> Ah, a disciple of Justice Potter who could not define obscenity but knew
> it when he saw it!
Something along those lines.
> On 5/9/2012 5:14 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2012-05-09 10:30 , Chemiker wrote:
>>> On Tue, 08 May 2012 17:53:06 -0400, SI Committee
>>> <si.mod...@squigglethis-yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Extensive digital manipulation is not welcome and certainly is not the
>>>> goal of the SI.
>>>
>>> Are we getting into X-rated territory here?
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>> Past moderators would not allow nudity. I would as long as it is not
>> vulgar/obscene or otherwise offensive.
>>
>>
> Ah, a disciple of Justice Potter who could not define obscenity but knew
> it when he saw it!
"One man's porn is another man's art."
Not sure who quipped that first.
Alan Browne
May 9, 2012, 6:19:54 PM5/9/12
to
assuredly will go to the winnah and champeen!
gpsman
May 9, 2012, 9:33:16 PM5/9/12
to
On May 9, 5:03 pm, SI Committee <si.modera...@squigglethis-yahoo.com>
wrote:
-----
- gpsman
wrote:
> On 2012-05-09 07:44 , gpsman wrote:
> > whatever images that were in my opinion over-
> > manipulated would go straight in the bit bucket.
>
> > whatever images that were in my opinion over-
> > manipulated would go straight in the bit bucket.
>
> The moderators have never thrown a photo out to our knowledge (other
> than one case where a moderator thought a particular photo to be too
> explicit sexually).
And... a few others that didn't conform to size...
> than one case where a moderator thought a particular photo to be too
> explicit sexually).
-----
- gpsman
gpsman
May 9, 2012, 9:32:09 PM5/9/12
to
On May 9, 6:02 pm, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2012 04:44:22 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
> <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Were it me, I'd spec a mandate and 5 minutes max. for "adjustments",
> >and anyone who didn't want to participate would be welcome to not
> >participate, and whatever images that were in my opinion over-
> >manipulated would go straight in the bit bucket.
>
> As soon as the SI starts offering cash prizes we'll welcome more
> specific rules. In the current format, it's photo sharing of images
> somewhat related to the mandate according to the interpretation of the
> shooter.
If that is the case I don't see much of a point of the "mandate".
> On Wed, 9 May 2012 04:44:22 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
> <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Were it me, I'd spec a mandate and 5 minutes max. for "adjustments",
> >and anyone who didn't want to participate would be welcome to not
> >participate, and whatever images that were in my opinion over-
> >manipulated would go straight in the bit bucket.
>
> As soon as the SI starts offering cash prizes we'll welcome more
> specific rules. In the current format, it's photo sharing of images
> somewhat related to the mandate according to the interpretation of the
> shooter.
I have often been led astray on Usenet by what words mean.
> Considering the turn-out in both submission of images and discussion
> of the images posted, the prime objective of the moderator should be
> keep it simple in order to keep it going.
> Turning away images should
> not be a consideration.
> About those cash prizes...sponsors are welcome. I think Alan will
> accept your PayPal contribution.
-----
- gpsman
tony cooper
May 14, 2012, 11:40:25 PM5/14/12
to
On Wed, 9 May 2012 18:32:09 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
for this round of the Shoot-In" and understand that there is no
disqualification or penalty for submitting something off-subject.
This is an informal showcase of photos submitted by some of the people
who regularly read this, and the related, newsgroups. Very informal.
>> Considering the turn-out in both submission of images and discussion
>> of the images posted, the prime objective of the moderator should be
>> keep it simple in order to keep it going.
>
>I would not have guessed my method would be more complicated.
>
>> Turning away images should
>> not be a consideration.
>
>Exaggeration for effect.
>
>> About those cash prizes...sponsors are welcome. I think Alan will
>> accept your PayPal contribution.
>
>Who won last...?
There are no winners, no judges, no votes. Feel free, however, to
tell anyone who doesn't read the group that your submission was the
Grand Prize Winner.
<gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>On May 9, 6:02 pm, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 May 2012 04:44:22 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
>> <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Were it me, I'd spec a mandate and 5 minutes max. for "adjustments",
>> >and anyone who didn't want to participate would be welcome to not
>> >participate, and whatever images that were in my opinion over-
>> >manipulated would go straight in the bit bucket.
>>
>> As soon as the SI starts offering cash prizes we'll welcome more
>> specific rules. In the current format, it's photo sharing of images
>> somewhat related to the mandate according to the interpretation of the
>> shooter.
>
>If that is the case I don't see much of a point of the "mandate".
>
>I have often been led astray on Usenet by what words mean.
If it helps, mentally translate "mandate" into "the subject suggested
>On May 9, 6:02 pm, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 May 2012 04:44:22 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
>> <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Were it me, I'd spec a mandate and 5 minutes max. for "adjustments",
>> >and anyone who didn't want to participate would be welcome to not
>> >participate, and whatever images that were in my opinion over-
>> >manipulated would go straight in the bit bucket.
>>
>> As soon as the SI starts offering cash prizes we'll welcome more
>> specific rules. In the current format, it's photo sharing of images
>> somewhat related to the mandate according to the interpretation of the
>> shooter.
>
>If that is the case I don't see much of a point of the "mandate".
>
>I have often been led astray on Usenet by what words mean.
for this round of the Shoot-In" and understand that there is no
disqualification or penalty for submitting something off-subject.
This is an informal showcase of photos submitted by some of the people
who regularly read this, and the related, newsgroups. Very informal.
>> Considering the turn-out in both submission of images and discussion
>> of the images posted, the prime objective of the moderator should be
>> keep it simple in order to keep it going.
>
>I would not have guessed my method would be more complicated.
>
>> Turning away images should
>> not be a consideration.
>
>Exaggeration for effect.
>
>> About those cash prizes...sponsors are welcome. I think Alan will
>> accept your PayPal contribution.
>
>Who won last...?
tell anyone who doesn't read the group that your submission was the
Grand Prize Winner.
0 new messages