[SI] New Mandates
Bowser
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.
tony cooper
Has Bruce approved of these mandates?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Bowser
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.
tony cooper
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*.
Bruce
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?
John McWilliams
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 shit he brings up - let's let the
past stay there.
--
john mcwilliams
tony cooper
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.
Savageduck
Only if it is a "noisy" shot of a train in bad light.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Bowser
wrote:
I thought we discussed this at our committee meeting? Only those that
submit get to complain, correct?
Bruce
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. ;-)
Savageduck
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.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Bowser
wrote:
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.
Bowser
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Congratulations! You just named the next three mandates after
Facescape!
Bruce
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>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.
Bruce
>
>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?
John McWilliams
To educate and illuminate the great unwashed.
But thank you for the good overview.
==
--
john mcwilliams
Savageduck
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?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Bruce
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2010-02-07 09:29:09 -0800, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 15:51:03 -0800, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>What standards?
My point, exactly. There aren't any.
Savageduck
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.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Peter
news:l3utm594rrouonabe...@4ax.com...
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?
--
Peter
Bruce
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.
Peter
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.
--
Peter
Bruce
<pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
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.
Bruce
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2010-02-07 11:11:58 -0800, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 10:13:12 -0800, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> What standards?
>>
>> 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."
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
>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.
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.
Robert Coe
What embarrassing fiasco? Who was embarrassed? The only thing embarrassing in
this thread is you.
Bob
Savageduck
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:08:01 -0800, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> On 2010-02-07 11:11:58 -0800, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 10:13:12 -0800, Savageduck
>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What standards?
>>>
>>> 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."
>
>
> 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
>> 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.
>
>
> 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.
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.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Peter
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>
--
Peter
Peter
news:ibkum59rk5qmggqge...@4ax.com...
Wrong. I should also be embarrassed for bothering to respond to him.
--
Peter
Peter
news:2010020716040943042-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
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.
--
Peter
Savageduck
>
>
> 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 ass!
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
>
>
> 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. :-)
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
We are an honorable group.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Bruce
I don't think I - or anyone else - could possibly stoop that low.
Bruce
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>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 ass!
More personal abuse ...
That hole you're in is getting deeper and deeper. Keep digging!
Bruce
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>We are an honorable group.
Spoken from the gutter.
John McWilliams
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?
--
john mcwilliams
Savageduck
Well they needed the canine cheerleader.
Amazing what you can do with a green screen.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 16:14:21 -0800, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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 absorbed with your "professionalism" there is no
>> doubt you have no intention of providing constructive criticism, or
>> advice to lead any of us lowly hobbyists to improve our photography.
>>
>> What a pompous ass!
>
>
> More personal abuse ...
>
> 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.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Bowser
"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l3utm594rrouonabe...@4ax.com...
to make the trolls look, so we can say "made you look."
Seriously, Bruce, Tony, whatever you name is, troll elsewhere.
Bowser
"Robert Coe" <b...@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:ibkum59rk5qmggqge...@4ax.com...
Besides, he talks like fiascos are a bad thing. Hardly. I love them.
Bowser
"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:asgum519pn114f2m0...@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
> 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.
Bowser
"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7rmum5hvi5tf5oc6f...@4ax.com...
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.
Peter
news:seUbn.199$5N3...@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com...
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.
--
Peter
tony cooper
"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".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Bruce
<pete...@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
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.
Chris Malcolm
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?
--
Chris Malcolm
Bowser
"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ue2n5p2psorql0t4...@4ax.com...
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.
Savageduck
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.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
George Kerby
On 2/9/10 4:45 AM, in article 7ue2n5p2psorql0t4...@4ax.com,
"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
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!?!
Peter
Mirrors are not expensive.
--
Peter
Robert Coe
: On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:17:25 -0500, tony cooper
: <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:
: >On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:08:05 -0500, Bowser <Ca...@Nikon.Panny> wrote:
: >
: >>On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:42:55 -0500, tony cooper
: >><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
: >>
: >>>
: >>>>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.
: >>>
: >>>
: >>>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.
: >
: >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*.
:
: Congratulations! You just named the next three mandates after
: Facescape!
As it happens, I've got "Footscape" covered. ;^)
Bob