[SI] New Mandate: The Road Less Travelled, Due July 19th, 2009
Bowser
Travelled." The due date for this mandate is July 19th, 2009. I had to
extend the due date a bit to accomodate my work and vacation schedule, but
it'll give us more time to shoot some originals rather than submitting
archive shots. So please avoid the archive shots for this one!
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/road_less_traveled
The photo in the gallery is from Southern Utah, taken shortly before the
road became impassable by SUV.
Pete D
"Bowser" <u...@gone.now> wrote in message
news:4a2d7dcc$0$11539$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
Dang, was looking to start putting some entries in these shootouts and this
mandate would be great for a trip I am doing up through some of the Aussie
desert areas next month.
Pete
Alan Browne
Submit late. I'm sure Bowser can be cajoled into adding your late
entries, or at least you can do a later posting elsewhere that we'll all
enjoy.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Alan Browne
In suggesting the mandate I was not thinking of roads but rather "ways,
means, methods, approaches, techniques, ....." to whatever photo you
like. Of course an actual road could be the subject. It might be well
traveled, but not by you, or one well traveled, but in a different way...
Cheers,
Alan
Bowser
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:y9SdnXwX79hfVLPX...@giganews.com...
> On 08-06-09 17:07, Bowser wrote:
>> Courtesy of our Canadian friend, the new mandate is "The Road Less
>> Travelled." The due date for this mandate is July 19th, 2009. I had to
>> extend the due date a bit to accomodate my work and vacation schedule,
>> but it'll give us more time to shoot some originals rather than
>> submitting archive shots. So please avoid the archive shots for this one!
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/road_less_traveled
>>
>> The photo in the gallery is from Southern Utah, taken shortly before the
>> road became impassable by SUV.
>
>
> In suggesting the mandate I was not thinking of roads but rather "ways,
> means, methods, approaches, techniques, ....." to whatever photo you like.
> Of course an actual road could be the subject. It might be well traveled,
> but not by you, or one well traveled, but in a different way...
And that is precisely I did not expand on your definition. It's completely
open to the shooter's intrepertation. Hopefully, things will stay clean.
Bowser
"Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:4a2e0ac3$0$32382$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Send them whenever you can and I'll post them. How far off the date would
you estimate?
Alan Browne
I was just reacting to your SI image that represents the mandate.
Cheers,
Alan.
Peter Chant
> Courtesy of our Canadian friend, the new mandate is "The Road Less
> Travelled." The due date for this mandate is July 19th, 2009. I had to
> extend the due date a bit to accomodate my work and vacation schedule, but
> it'll give us more time to shoot some originals rather than submitting
> archive shots. So please avoid the archive shots for this one!
Bowser,
did you get my submission for filters? Sent it on 18th May to
si.mod...@yahoo.com .
Pete
Bowser
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> On 09-06-09 17:26, Bowser wrote:
>>
>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:y9SdnXwX79hfVLPX...@giganews.com...
>>> On 08-06-09 17:07, Bowser wrote:
>>>> Courtesy of our Canadian friend, the new mandate is "The Road Less
>>>> Travelled." The due date for this mandate is July 19th, 2009. I had to
>>>> extend the due date a bit to accomodate my work and vacation schedule,
>>>> but it'll give us more time to shoot some originals rather than
>>>> submitting archive shots. So please avoid the archive shots for this
>>>> one!
>>>>
>>>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/road_less_traveled
>>>>
>>>> The photo in the gallery is from Southern Utah, taken shortly before
>>>> the
>>>> road became impassable by SUV.
>>>
>>>
>>> In suggesting the mandate I was not thinking of roads but rather
>>> "ways, means, methods, approaches, techniques, ....." to whatever
>>> photo you like. Of course an actual road could be the subject. It
>>> might be well traveled, but not by you, or one well traveled, but in a
>>> different way...
>>
>> And that is precisely I did not expand on your definition. It's
>> completely open to the shooter's intrepertation. Hopefully, things will
>> stay clean.
>
> I was just reacting to your SI image that represents the mandate.
Yeah, it was the only shot I could find in my archives that sort of fit it.
Then again, the mandate doesn't *exclude* shots of dirt roads, does it?
Heh, heh....
Bowser
"Peter Chant" <REMpe...@petezilla.co.uk> wrote in message
news:_LBXl.36822$2t7....@newsfe16.ams2...
Never arrived. Can you resend?
>
> Pete
>
> --
> http://www.petezilla.co.uk
Annika1980
>
> Yeah, it was the only shot I could find in my archives that sort of fit it.
> Then again, the mandate doesn't *exclude* shots of dirt roads, does it?
I suspect we'll see more than one of them.
Peter Chant
> Never arrived. Can you resend?
Gremlins! Resent.
Thanks,
Pete
Alan Browne
>
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>
>> I was just reacting to your SI image that represents the mandate.
>
> Yeah, it was the only shot I could find in my archives that sort of fit
> it. Then again, the mandate doesn't *exclude* shots of dirt roads, does it?
>
> Heh, heh....
Politician at heart.
Pete D
"Bowser" <u...@gone.now> wrote in message
Be back the end of July, definately be out of range of everything for the
ten days prior.
I will certainly post some shots when I get back.
Pete
Bowser
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> On 10-06-09 07:43, Bowser wrote:
>>
>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>
>>>
>>> I was just reacting to your SI image that represents the mandate.
>>
>> Yeah, it was the only shot I could find in my archives that sort of fit
>> it. Then again, the mandate doesn't *exclude* shots of dirt roads, does
>> it?
>>
>> Heh, heh....
>
> Politician at heart.
Hey, no need to be insulting.
;-)
Bowser
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:58fa03fb-8703-4013...@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Hope so. I just live for literal translations of mandates.
Annika1980
> >I suspect we'll see more than one of them.
>
> Hope so. I just live for literal translations of mandates.
A literal interpretation of this mandate will produce a lot of tired,
cliched photographs of dirt roads, walking paths, etc..
The prohibition against archived shots might make this one, "The
Mandate Less Entered."
I don't wanna spoil it for ya, but I have good info that Alan Browne
is currently arranging colored squares on a lightbox in the shape of a
country road.
Alan Browne
Just proves I can't confide anything in you without you blabbing it all
over usenet.
Bowser
>A literal interpretation of this mandate will produce a lot of tired,
>cliched photographs of dirt roads, walking paths, etc..
>The prohibition against archived shots might make this one, "The
>Mandate Less Entered."
Like most of them now...
We tried Filters, and got marginal response. Punography, the mandate many
considered to be awful, got 11 entries while Filters, something deemed to be
easier, got 18. Wow. I'm at a loss as to how to encourage participation,
given my time constraints. Aside from making it completely open week to week
with no restriction on archive shots, that is...
>
>I don't wanna spoil it for ya, but I have good info that Alan Browne
>is currently arranging colored squares on a lightbox in the shape of a
>country road.
Actually, that sounds pretty challenging. Looking forward to Alan's entry.
tony cooper
>
>"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:de619d8b-92d0-4676...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>A literal interpretation of this mandate will produce a lot of tired,
>>cliched photographs of dirt roads, walking paths, etc..
>>The prohibition against archived shots might make this one, "The
>>Mandate Less Entered."
>
>Like most of them now...
>
>We tried Filters, and got marginal response. Punography, the mandate many
>considered to be awful, got 11 entries while Filters, something deemed to be
>easier, got 18. Wow. I'm at a loss as to how to encourage participation,
>given my time constraints. Aside from making it completely open week to week
>with no restriction on archive shots, that is...
>
I doubt if there is anything you can do to encourage participation.
There are posters here who are willing to post their photographs and
be subjected to praise or criticism, and there are posters here who
are afraid to do so. The latter group includes some posters who
natter on and on about the techniques of photography, but never post
their own work to show that they can actually put those techniques
into practice. They are usually adamant about being right about
everything, but won't show the pudding.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Calvin Sambrook
news:fk22355nv49edm6gm...@4ax.com...
I've been surprised by the lack of feedback following shoot-in publication,
if you look at the number of posts I think you'll find people are happier to
debate the next mandate title and have a pop at Bowser than they are to
stick their necks out and either post a photo or post feedback for anyone
else. Which is a shame really as I think most of us could do with some
criticism to help us improve (with the exception on Tony Cooper who's photos
are generally excellent).
tony cooper
I appreciate the compliment and would like to share whatever it is
that you are smoking.
I, too, was surprised by the lack of comments. I don't think the idea
is to critique every photo, but I do think that the good ones should
be recognized and what misses can be pointed out.
In a genuine critique, "this photo is not interesting to me" is not
really a valid comment unless some point is raised about what *would*
make the photo interesting. However, in this forum, I think "this
photo is not interesting to me" is a legitimate comment. This is not
a critique exercise; it's supposed to a fun challenge and that comment
shows the reaction of our photo to that challenge.
In a real critique forum, you don't see the "what I was trying to do"
comments as you do here. Actually, I like reading those comments.
They give me some insight into what the poster was attempting, and
make me think about how I would have handled the same attempt.
I haven't decided whether or not to criticize the coming mandate. If
I can come up with a photo that meets it, I'll be all for it. If I
come up dry, I'll blame it on Bowser or Alan.
Savageduck
I can only agree.
I think the issue is the fear of criticism from those who use these NGs
to conduct sophomoric ego wars. These individuals are the usual
suspects, who themselves lack the courage of their convictions to post
any examples of their work.
There are many of us who make no claim of being professional
photographers, or even strive to be professional photographers. Some of
us are hobbyists with a life long interest in photography. Some are
novices who are seeking guidance, and some are occasional snap shot
clickers who discover a problem which needs solving.
We can all benefit from the contributions made, whether it is a finely
executed piece, or novice interpretation.
The individuals who might be reluctant to share images all of us could
benefit from, and appreciate need to understand there is a full
spectrum of critics in these NG's.
Accept true constructive criticism for what it is, and learn. Take the
comments which are made with obvious humor and smile.
As for as the malicious, vindictive and worthless snipes from pompous
asses and provocative trolls, just discount them as the garbage they
are. With the exception of a certain wedding photographer we have not
seen, and in all likelihood will never see any their fine work.
All of us who participate in any active way in these NG's or forums
have to be able to recognize the individual responders and posters who
can only damage and ultimately destroy discussion groups such as these.
As long as those who have the talent, experience, and those with lesser
offerings take the risk of posting within the spirit of the SI
mandate, it will remain a valuable source of inspiration for all of us.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Calvin Sambrook
I don't agree with you about the unhelpfulness of "this photo is not
interesting to me" style comments. Of course I'd prefer someone to tell me
why they do or don't like my photo but I also realise that sometimes you
know how you feel but don't understand why. Part of the skill in
photography is making an image which appeals to the subconscious mind and by
definition that makes it hard for un-initiated people to identify why they
react to an image the way they do.
Perhaps the most obvious and well known example of that would be the "rule
of thirds". If I shoot a photo which obeys this rule people might well like
the photo as a result. Most people however have never heard of the rule and
couldn't be expected to identify it as the reason the photo works.
There's some interesting psychology experiments from the 1950's and 60's by
people like Paul Slovic which are thought the show that people's reactions
always come from the subconscious initially and are then moderated more or
less effectively by the conscious mind. It is thought that people's stated
reason for liking or disliking something is almost totally unreliable and is
pretty much a "manufactured justification" for what they think
subconsciously. If that's true, and the experiments do carry some weight,
then it's unreasonable to expect more than "interesting" or "not
interesting" from people who haven't studied the "rules" of photography.
Part of the reason I want feedback is to increase my understanding of these
rules so I can apply them more effectively.
tony cooper
<csam...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>I don't agree with you about the unhelpfulness of "this photo is not
>interesting to me" style comments.
I hope you took in the full comment including the "unless" part and
that this pertains to a "genuine critique". To me, a "genuine
critique" both points out the flaws and offers suggestions of
improvement.
I don't really regard the comments here to be a "genuine critique".
They could be, but there's no understanding or requirement that if you
comment on a Shoot-In entry that you are providing a critique.
In a designated critique forum, or in a camera club critique session,
I expect "genuine critiques"...the good, the bad, and the ugly. Not
here in a newsgroup, though.
Calvin Sambrook
On re-reading your previous comment I see that I misunderstood. I think we
are saying the same thing, that "this photo is not interesting to me" is a
legitimate comment here. It's nice if the poster then goes on the say why
they think that is or what would make it better but not essential here.
I'd still like to see more comments though. Good, Bad or Ugly.
Peter Chant
> Courtesy of our Canadian friend, the new mandate is "The Road Less
> Travelled." The due date for this mandate is July 19th, 2009. I had to
Drat, I have just taken some photos of the exact opposite:
http://www.petezilla.co.uk/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=339
Pete
Alan Browne
I'm having a fit of creative differences brought on by Bret's
disclosure. I might have to get out of the house.
Peter Chant
>
> Politician at heart.
>
Only if he's claimed for his duck house or moat cleaning on expenses...
Annika1980
wrote:
>
> I'm having a fit of creative differences brought on by Bret's
> disclosure. I might have to get out of the house.
You still going with that blonde?
Of course, that might be the Road More Traveled.
Critic
I'll only use my valuable time on critiquing the rare few photographers
that might show a hint of prowess, deserving of a bit of apprenticeship.
("When the student is ready the teacher will appear.") Otherwise I'm busy
creating my own photography. I let the scrapshooters try to drag themselves
up by their own bootstraps. They'll figure it out someday--or not.
Most likely not, judging by the dreck that is routinely posted for SI.
tony cooper
wrote:
I am extremely flattered that you took some of your valuable time and
read my post. I am practically hugging myself with joy over the fact
that you've taken even *more* time and crafted an individual reply to
my post.
Critic
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Finally. One of the multitudes of crapshooter internet-cretins that knows
their real position in life. About time. You show promise by this alone,
little of it, but little is better than none.
Alan Browne
Great adventures every time. Nothing like a strong relationship with
its myriad possibilities.
Regards to your wife from the football team, BTW.
Alan Browne
> Most likely not, judging by the dreck that is routinely posted for SI.
Echoes of Tony Polson. All hat and no cattle.
Bob Larter
None of which you have the courage to show us. Gee, I wonder why?
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
*Whooosh!*
Savageduck
I was thinking the same thing myself.
It seems those Phantasy P&S machines lack an irony meter feature.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Robert Coe
wrote:
: On Jun 10, 5:09�pm, "Bowser" <u...@gone.now> wrote:
:
: > >I suspect we'll see more than one of them.
: >
: > Hope so. I just live for literal translations of mandates.
:
: A literal interpretation of this mandate will produce a lot of tired,
: cliched photographs of dirt roads, walking paths, etc..
: The prohibition against archived shots might make this one, "The
: Mandate Less Entered."
I read the enjoinder against archive shots as more a plea than a prohibition
and intend to treat my interpretation as definitive. ;^) But I'll submit some
new stuff too. (I've already taken one picture and have plans for two more,
although I'll need the weather to cooperate for one of them.)
All else equal, new shots are probably better than archive shots, if for no
other reason than that they tend to match the mandates better. But in this
case, given the (arguably justifiable) denigration of clich�s, I agree with
Bret that you may not be able to have it both ways.
Bob
Robert Coe
: > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:50:31 -0400, "Bowser" <u...@gone.now> wrote:
: >
: >>
: >>"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
: >>news:de619d8b-92d0-4676...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
: >>
: >>>A literal interpretation of this mandate will produce a lot of tired,
: >>>cliched photographs of dirt roads, walking paths, etc..
: >>>The prohibition against archived shots might make this one, "The
: >>>Mandate Less Entered."
: >>
: >>Like most of them now...
: >>
: >>We tried Filters, and got marginal response. Punography, the mandate many
: >>considered to be awful, got 11 entries while Filters, something deemed to
: >>be
: >>easier, got 18. Wow. I'm at a loss as to how to encourage participation,
: >>given my time constraints. Aside from making it completely open week to
: >>week
: >>with no restriction on archive shots, that is...
: >>
: >
: > I doubt if there is anything you can do to encourage participation.
: > There are posters here who are willing to post their photographs and
: > be subjected to praise or criticism, and there are posters here who
: > are afraid to do so. The latter group includes some posters who
: > natter on and on about the techniques of photography, but never post
: > their own work to show that they can actually put those techniques
: > into practice. They are usually adamant about being right about
: > everything, but won't show the pudding.
The answer (obviously?) is not to make it unnecessarily difficult for those
who are willing to enter to do so.
: I've been surprised by the lack of feedback following shoot-in publication,
: if you look at the number of posts I think you'll find people are happier to
: debate the next mandate title and have a pop at Bowser than they are to
: stick their necks out and either post a photo or post feedback for anyone
: else. Which is a shame really as I think most of us could do with some
: criticism to help us improve (with the exception on Tony Cooper who's photos
: are generally excellent).
I've posted comments on several of the mandates, but haven't done so lately,
mainly because I haven't had time to submit photos and don't want to criticize
when I haven't entered. (Although there were at least two months when pictures
I submitted didn't make it into the show. They weren't good enough to make an
issue of, so I didn't.) Both my wife and I do plan to enter this time, and
I'll try to post comments.
Bob