[SI] Pony trick mandates - Time for improvement?
Owamanga
On Mon, 23 May 2005 17:30:20 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan....@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>Owamanga wrote:
>
>>Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>>The 'break the rules' and the current "Best Worst" are examples of
>>>things in the SI that do not challenge us to do better photography.
>>
>> I disagree with the first half: Break the rules was a challenge
>> because the mandate was "Break the rules and come up with an image
>> *that still works*". That last bit is important to the mandate. As it
>> turned out, I had a recent shot that met (IMHO) the criteria so never
>> did get around to shooting something specifically for it.
>
>"Break the rules", IMO, focuses on what it is supposed to be breaking
>away from.
>
>I'd rather make photos that reply to a need for a themed photo and not a
>need to focus on rules, positively or negatively.
>
>(Note: in my former photo club, there would be a variety of themes.
>Whenever the themes were subject oriented ("non studio portraits",
>"Rivers", "Trees", etc. the photography presented would be great.
>Whenever the themes were 'technical', that is to say: "Contrast",
>"Vertical perspective", etc., the photography was the most stilted. On
>could say that the aspect themese were more challenging. I would say
>that the themes that produced the best photography were the most useful
>for everyone. Hence my position above.)
>
>>>I hope the remaining mandators get back to challenging us to do
>>>interesting things instead of pony tricks.
>>
>> Harsh...
>
>Maybe. I just want some target that's inspiring. To me the last two
>mandates were anything but.
Alan, you make some good points. I've heard the following suggestion
before and I think its a good one: We should have run two SI's
simultaneously, maintaining the current 2 week submission deadline.
Bringing in your complaints; SI-1 should retain it's current format of
basically anything goes including technical and emotional (arty)
mandates, SI-2 should be restricted to simpler subject oriented
challenges (which would probably appeal to more people because a less
restrictive mandate is easier to meet).
Another way to look at it is whilst SI-1 has a mandate, SI-2 would
have a subject oriented theme.
Both SI's should be kept at the same www.pbase.com/shootin area so as
not to split the pack, and submissions to both be encouraged.
What do you think? Can you twist Al's arm?
Anyone?
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Ken Nadvornick
> I hope the remaining mandators get back to challenging us to do
> interesting things instead of pony tricks.
Agreed. While I readily accept that several of the recent mandates work for
some others, they have not for me. They have seemed to me to be more
process-oriented than subject- or theme-oriented. ("Meta-mandates?")
In fact, they are the main reasons I have chosen this point in time to
perform some long overdue maintenance and upgrade tasks in my darkroom.
(Adding a second set of deep red safelights to help with minor VC paper
fogging issues, ergonomically reworking the timer panel, recalibrating the
Zone VI developing timer, changing hot/cold water line filters... things
like that.)
The sun is now out late this time of year. I await with hope the next
mandator's imagination.
Ken
Ryadia@Home
>
>
> Alan, you make some good points. I've heard the following suggestion
> before and I think its a good one: We should have run two SI's
> simultaneously, maintaining the current 2 week submission deadline.
>
>
> --
> Owamanga!
> http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Right up to here I was nodding in agreement and then... Ohmygod, He
wants to complicate it!
Shootin needs something to entice brilliant photographers and Photoshop
artists like Douglas MacDonald back to the fold. Alas while vague and
meaningless mandates exist, there is little interest in the whole thing.
You are absolutely right about subject matter rather than mandate being
an attraction. If someone came up with a mandate like: dawn landscapes
or outdoor portraits, I'm sure this would attract many more entries than
the miserable number it get since that highly acclaimed and well
ridiculed Photographer: Bret Douglas handed over control of the thing.
Yeah... Bring back Photography for photography's sake, I say.
Douglas
jimkramer
news:8gs69113r54uu1k5c...@4ax.com...
<big ol'e SNIP>
Absolutely no one is forcing you to play. No one is forcing you to
participate in each SI, although I think more is generally better. Uncle Al
will be announcing shortly (I hope; wink, wink, nudge, nudge) a call for new
mandate setters (now that's a great name for a dating service) for round 3
of the SI. If you don't like the past mandates then make sure you get to
pick at least one of the future mandates. You are always free to interpret
the mandate as you see fit. If you really don't like it then bend it to
your will or skip it.
I hesitate to mention that there are additional photo
displays/competitions/commentaries that you can go and play too.
Jim (Oh, Look, Now I'm Grumpy) Kramer
Bandicoot
news:8gs69113r54uu1k5c...@4ax.com...
>
> On Mon, 23 May 2005 17:30:20 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan....@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >Owamanga wrote:
> >
> >>Alan Browne wrote:
> >>
> >>>The 'break the rules' and the current "Best Worst" are
> >>>examples of things in the SI that do not challenge us to
> >>>do better photography.
> >>
> >> I disagree with the first half: Break the rules was a
> >> challenge because the mandate was "Break the rules
> >> and come up with an image *that still works*". That last > >> bit is
important to the mandate. As it turned out, I had a
> >> recent shot that met (IMHO) the criteria so never did
> >> get around to shooting something specifically for it.
> >
Yes, the 'that still works' part was intended to be absolutely fundamental
to the mandate, and I think those that submitted all took that on board and
sent in some good work - some of it very good. The best/worst is indeed,
perhaps, less challenging, but it is a good counter-point to the
rule-breaking mandate and so a good one to follow it. I also like the idea
of difficult and easier mandates being interleaved, since it gives everyone
a chance to send something in.
> >"Break the rules", IMO, focuses on what it is supposed to
> >be breaking away from.
> >
> >I'd rather make photos that reply to a need for a themed
> >photo and not a need to focus on rules, positively or
> >negatively.
There have been threads in here, some quite recently, that focused on
'rules' in what I felt was sometimes a detrimental fashion. Hence my choice
of mandate, and I'm happy with both the submissions it garnered and -
perhaps more importantly - with some of the discussion it provoked. A read
of my posts over time will show quickly just what I think of 'rules', and
should make it clear why I chose the mandate!
> >
> >(Note: in my former photo club, there would be a variety
> >of themes. Whenever the themes were subject oriented
> >("non studio portraits", "Rivers", "Trees", etc. the
> >photography presented would be great. Whenever the
> >themes were 'technical', that is to say: "Contrast", "Vertical >
>perspective", etc., the photography was the most stilted.
> >On could say that the aspect themese were more
> >challenging. I would say that the themes that produced the > >best
photography were the most useful for everyone.
> >Hence my position above.)
I would think the themes that produced the best photography were surely the
ones people benefited _least_ from. People may have enjoyed them, they
may have been great showcases, but they weren't stretched by them. Now, the
SI isn't intended to be solely educative, and if it allows some of us to
showcase what we are best at sometimes that is no bad thing - however, I
think it is at its most useful when it also encourages some of us to do what
we feel less comfortable with, and to learn and improve in the process.
Otherwise you could just alternate 'flowers' and 'landscapes' and I'll send
you a prize-winning (or at least, in my case, moneymaking) shot every two
weeks - but I won't learn or improve anything much in the process. That
would be the mandate choice that would collect my best work, but it would be
pointless for me, since there'd be no real challenge - if that was all we
were trying to do, then I might as well just send pictures to a 'camera
club' competition.
Sure I'd like us to have mandates that we are comfortable with and let us
produce our best work for some of the time. But I'd also like these to
balanced with mandates that challenge and stretch. Maybe fewer people will
submit to the more difficult mandates, but that is OK too, so long as we
also have easy ones from time to time to keep people interested. If you
never want to submit to anything that you don't feel you can deal with
easily, then that is your loss more than anyone else's. If you think the
mandate that collects your best work is challenging, then you need to get
out more!
> >
> >>>I hope the remaining mandators get back to challenging > >>>us to do
interesting things instead of pony tricks.
> >>
> >> Harsh...
> >
> >Maybe. I just want some target that's inspiring. To me
> >the last two mandates were anything but.
But they inspired some people, and that's enough - just look at the gallery.
We need a variety of mandates, not (only) a succession of jigsaw puzzle /
greetings card / chocolate box images.
>
> Alan, you make some good points. I've heard the following
> suggestion before and I think its a good one: We should
> have run two SI's simultaneously, maintaining the current 2
> week submission deadline.
>
> Bringing in your complaints; SI-1 should retain it's current
> format of basically anything goes including technical and
> emotional (arty) mandates, SI-2 should be restricted to
> simpler subject oriented challenges (which would probably
> appeal to more people because a less restrictive mandate is
> easier to meet).
>
> Another way to look at it is whilst SI-1 has a mandate, SI-2 > would have
a subject oriented theme.
>
> Both SI's should be kept at the same
> www.pbase.com/shootin area so as not to split the pack,
> and submissions to both be encouraged.
>
> What do you think? Can you twist Al's arm?
>
> Anyone?
>
I do like the idea of encouraging a variety in mandate - as indicated above.
However, I wonder if having two overlapping sequences, with a mandate due
each week, would just be too much. There are only so many people shooting
for the SI, and I wonder if we just wouldn't get that many entries. Each
gallery is interesting because of the variety of approaches to each mandate
that it contains, and if there are only half a dozen submissions in a
gallery it rather loses its value.
So, is an alternative to stick to the current timetable, but aim to
alternate mandates that are subject oriented (landscape, water, flowers,
action, portrait, etc.) with those that are not? This will be tricky when a
mandate obviously can be read in both senses - near/far, for example - but
it cannot be beyond the wit of man to sort out such issues. We'd need two
lists of mandators, and everyone could be asked if they wanted a place on
either or both each time a new list needed to be drawn up.
Any other thoughts?
Peter
Roxy d'Urban
> [From a discussion that became OT in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems]
<ker-chunck>
> Alan, you make some good points. I've heard the following suggestion
> before and I think its a good one: We should have run two SI's
> simultaneously, maintaining the current 2 week submission deadline.
>
> Bringing in your complaints; SI-1 should retain it's current format of
> basically anything goes including technical and emotional (arty) mandates,
> SI-2 should be restricted to simpler subject oriented challenges (which
> would probably appeal to more people because a less restrictive mandate is
> easier to meet).
>
> Another way to look at it is whilst SI-1 has a mandate, SI-2 would have a
> subject oriented theme.
>
> Both SI's should be kept at the same www.pbase.com/shootin area so as not
> to split the pack, and submissions to both be encouraged.
>
> What do you think? Can you twist Al's arm?
>
> Anyone?
As far as I am concerned, the SI is well past its sell-by date. For an
activity like this to survive it needs to be interesting. The last round
of "mandates" have been anything but interesting.
IIRC the original concept put forward by Lisa was to encourage us to go
out there and shoot something with a common theme, compare our results and
learn from one another.
Since then the SI has become the domain of the incureably dull, with an
occasional glimmer of talent peeking through. In my opinion this is
probably because of the subject matter and also the "clique" of posters
it seems to have appealed to.
In my opinion it should be either shut down or completely revised to give
it a fresh appeal.
Suggestions regarding the latter?
1. Do it once a month.
2. Drop the "mandate" thing and have a broad group of catagories that are
always open. If you want to post a portrait or a picture of a bird every
month, so what?
3. Have a winner and a wooden-spoonist every month (as voted for by the
entrants).
4. Get a sponsored prize for the annual winner on aggregate. Nothing
massive, perhaps a B&H voucher or a hamper of photo goodies.
5. If we go the route of a competition with prizes, there should be an
official website where the images are kept and where the sponsor(s) can be
represented.
0.02c
--
"I'm here to make pictures, not friends."
~ Chris Buck
Graham Fountain
"Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8gs69113r54uu1k5c...@4ax.com...
Plus between my other obligations to work and family, I find it hard to get
enough time to find inspiration, shoot some photos, develop the film, get it
scanned etc within the 2 week time frame. (lately I find I get about 3
hours/week to devote to photography - if I'm lucky).
Perhaps the two overlapping mandates would be a good idea - personally I'd
like 1 month per mandate - with the overlaps this would still give a new
mandate every 2 weeks, but would give a bit more time to find inspiration
and get that perfect shot. I appreciate the feedback received when I do
participate in an SI.
In response to Roxy's suggestion of a judging and prizes, I disagree in
principle with that. One of the good things with the SI is that we have a
mix from beginners through to very experienced working professionals, and
every skill level in between. I think the current system of critiques rather
than outright judging works best to help all improve skills, whereas a
competition would become the baby of the more experienced photographers, and
would tend to prove discouraging to beginners.
Perhaps it is also time to split the SI into digital and film groups - just
a thought.
>
> --
> Owamanga!
> http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Roxy d'Urban
> In response to Roxy's suggestion of a judging and prizes, I disagree in
> principle with that. One of the good things with the SI is that we have a
> mix from beginners through to very experienced working professionals, and
> every skill level in between. I think the current system of critiques
> rather than outright judging works best to help all improve skills,
> whereas a competition would become the baby of the more experienced
> photographers, and would tend to prove discouraging to beginners. Perhaps
> it is also time to split the SI into digital and film groups - just a
> thought.
FWIW, there has been nothing remotely encouraging about the last few SI
submissions. For people wanting to learn this craft, the posting of a
fantastic image should provoke more encouragement to learn than anything.
As far as judging goes, it should work like this: as a participant you get
to chose one entry per round as your favourite for that round, but you
can't vote for yourself (sorry Bret). The person who picks up the most
votes for the round wins the round and gets allocated points, much like
the F1 driver's championship. There will be points for the top five
entrants.
At the end of the competition cycle all the points earned from each round
(not votes) are tallied up and a winner is chosen.
If you want success, raise your standards, don't lower them into the pit
of mediocrity.
Duncan Chesley
[Snipped interesting discussion]
>Anyone?
A persepctive from an experienced amateur lurker ...
I have enjoyed SI very much for the past year or more. I have also
learned a lot. I have seen many wonderful photographs, and benefitted
from the critiques and discussions of them.
IMHO one of the best things about SI is the varied mandates. Each
provides a focus, but the focus is always in a fresh direction. I
assume that's because the constraints on the mandates are few, and the
choices are made by different volunteers.
Please don't institute any mandate constraints.
With regard to the Breaking the Rules mandate, I found the results
instructive. I like looking at (and taking) pictures that break the
rules. To view this collection of rule-breaking pictures was a treat
for me. It feels to me that, if everyone followed all the rules,
photography might be pretty but boring.
I believe that one of the Prime Directives for an Educator, after
teaching the rules and goals behind them, is to teach how to
accomplish the goals without the rules.
So I liked this mandate. But, then again, I have enjoyed all the
mandates.
I want to take this opportunity to express my thanks to those that do
all the SI work and put their photographs out there for all of us to
see.
Duncan Chesley
Alan Browne
>
> I want to take this opportunity to express my thanks to those that do
> all the SI work and put their photographs out there for all of us to
> see.
I would suggest, Duncan, that the best expression of thanks would be to
leap in and participate.
Cheers,
Alan
--
-- 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.
Owamanga
<"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote:
>I do like the idea of encouraging a variety in mandate - as indicated above.
>However, I wonder if having two overlapping sequences, with a mandate due
>each week, would just be too much.
No, I was thinking of two concurrent mandates, both set at the same
time, both lasting two weeks.
This would allow the very occasional film users to take part in both
SI's at the same time, if they chose, and process a single roll of
film once every two weeks.
>There are only so many people shooting
>for the SI, and I wonder if we just wouldn't get that many entries.
Yes, I'd prefer to see double the number of entries too, thus me
asking the question - is it time to jazz it up a bit? Bring in some
simpler subject-based mandates. My suggestion allows this without
breaking the current SI, and it's list of future honored mandate
choosers.
>Each
>gallery is interesting because of the variety of approaches to each mandate
>that it contains, and if there are only half a dozen submissions in a
>gallery it rather loses its value.
Exactly. Where we may disagree, is how my suggestion (originally
somebody elses, I don't recall who) would damage that - it should do
the opposite.
>So, is an alternative to stick to the current timetable, but aim to
>alternate mandates that are subject oriented (landscape, water, flowers,
>action, portrait, etc.) with those that are not? This will be tricky when a
>mandate obviously can be read in both senses - near/far, for example - but
>it cannot be beyond the wit of man to sort out such issues. We'd need two
>lists of mandators, and everyone could be asked if they wanted a place on
>either or both each time a new list needed to be drawn up.
I still prefer the solution I'm proposing - it allows me to hate a
new mandate, but still participate in the subjective SI that runs
alongside it.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Alan Browne
> Alan, you make some good points. I've heard the following suggestion
> before and I think its a good one: We should have run two SI's
> simultaneously, maintaining the current 2 week submission deadline.
Given our current, low, critical mass of participants, I don't see this
working. MO.
> Bringing in your complaints; SI-1 should retain it's current format of
> basically anything goes including technical and emotional (arty)
> mandates, SI-2 should be restricted to simpler subject oriented
> challenges (which would probably appeal to more people because a less
> restrictive mandate is easier to meet).
I don't mind that the mandates be technical, but they should be positive
and specific as opposed to 'lost wax' (breaking the rules) and disaster
recovery (best of the worst).
> What do you think? Can you twist Al's arm?
Al's arms are easilly twisted but he's otherwise a stubborn old coot.
I would simply implore mandators to consider mandates that will lead
people to do things that lead to better photography, more appealing
photography and more creative photography. The recent rash of
coffin-corner assignments might have a perverse sense of challenge, but
it's frankly no fun. We're not getting the number of participants we
used to have either ... in part because (I believe) the mandates are
getting too narrow for most people to jump into.
I recognize that it's not easy coming up with fresh and appealing mandates.
Other notes:
I've attempted to enlist more participation by posting mandates in other
groups. I did not post either "breaking" or "Best/Worst" in other
places as I don't think they would appeal to anyone.
It's spring (sort of) here in the northern hemisphere. I want mandates
that will get me and others out hunting for new material.
Cheers,
Alan.
Owamanga
>As far as I am concerned, the SI is well past its sell-by date. For an
>activity like this to survive it needs to be interesting. The last round
>of "mandates" have been anything but interesting.
>
>IIRC the original concept put forward by Lisa was to encourage us to go
>out there and shoot something with a common theme, compare our results and
>learn from one another.
>
>Since then the SI has become the domain of the incureably dull, with an
>occasional glimmer of talent peeking through. In my opinion this is
>probably because of the subject matter and also the "clique" of posters
>it seems to have appealed to.
>
>In my opinion it should be either shut down or completely revised to give
>it a fresh appeal.
>
>Suggestions regarding the latter?
>
>1. Do it once a month.
I think that's too infrequent. The two week time line seems about
right. A month, and I've forgotten what I entered, a week and I'll
maybe not get an opportunity to shoot something. Two weeks is perfect.
>2. Drop the "mandate" thing and have a broad group of catagories that are
>always open. If you want to post a portrait or a picture of a bird every
>month, so what?
Because we can't deluge Al with a mixture of crap randomly appearing
in his email, there needs to be a reasonably rigid structure.
>3. Have a winner and a wooden-spoonist every month (as voted for by the
>entrants).
It's a shootin, not a shootout. It has no winners, and I for one enjoy
that aspect of it. Adding winners would discourage new participants.
>4. Get a sponsored prize for the annual winner on aggregate. Nothing
>massive, perhaps a B&H voucher or a hamper of photo goodies.
Complicated, and counter productive. This is about the people who
submit photos, plus those who just browse the results to improve their
photography. It allows hobbyists (like myself) an excuse to go out and
photograph something. Adding a coupon into the mix isn't going to help
much.
>5. If we go the route of a competition with prizes, there should be an
>official website where the images are kept and where the sponsor(s) can be
>represented.
Agreed, but I think we shouldn't move in that direction in the first
place.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Owamanga
>I'll add my voice that lately I've found the mandates a bit un-inspiring.
>Plus between my other obligations to work and family, I find it hard to get
>enough time to find inspiration, shoot some photos, develop the film, get it
>scanned etc within the 2 week time frame. (lately I find I get about 3
>hours/week to devote to photography - if I'm lucky).
>Perhaps the two overlapping mandates would be a good idea - personally I'd
>like 1 month per mandate - with the overlaps this would still give a new
>mandate every 2 weeks, but would give a bit more time to find inspiration
>and get that perfect shot. I appreciate the feedback received when I do
>participate in an SI.
Again, for simplicity (I'm sure I didn't make this clear in my first
post) I was suggesting that the mandates both start on the same day
run for two weeks, and end on the same day. For film users
specifically, having to monitor a complex overlapping timetable and
enter one or two submissions every one or two weeks would be
unacceptable.
>In response to Roxy's suggestion of a judging and prizes, I disagree in
>principle with that. One of the good things with the SI is that we have a
>mix from beginners through to very experienced working professionals, and
>every skill level in between. I think the current system of critiques rather
>than outright judging works best to help all improve skills, whereas a
>competition would become the baby of the more experienced photographers, and
>would tend to prove discouraging to beginners.
Agreed.
>Perhaps it is also time to split the SI into digital and film groups - just
>a thought.
I don't agree. Photography is photography, and in line with Alan's and
other's wants (mirroring Lisa's original idea) this should be about
broad subject themes, not technical stuff specific to the medium.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Owamanga
wrote:
>
>[Snipped interesting discussion]
>
>>Anyone?
>
>A persepctive from an experienced amateur lurker ...
>
>I have enjoyed SI very much for the past year or more. I have also
>learned a lot. I have seen many wonderful photographs, and benefitted
>from the critiques and discussions of them.
>
>IMHO one of the best things about SI is the varied mandates. Each
>provides a focus, but the focus is always in a fresh direction. I
>assume that's because the constraints on the mandates are few, and the
>choices are made by different volunteers.
>
>Please don't institute any mandate constraints.
The suggestion put forward basically leaves the current SI working as
it existed before, on a two week schedule with no constraints. All I'm
asking is for a second SI to run alongside the first, with an
identical timetable that has a guideline on mandates that they should
be subject themes, rather than technical, tricky or restrictively
specific.
>With regard to the Breaking the Rules mandate, I found the results
>instructive. I like looking at (and taking) pictures that break the
>rules. To view this collection of rule-breaking pictures was a treat
>for me. It feels to me that, if everyone followed all the rules,
>photography might be pretty but boring.
I agree, which is why I wouldn't like to see the existing SI go away -
many people still enjoy it. It's just with a simple tweak, we could
double the pleasure.
>I believe that one of the Prime Directives for an Educator, after
>teaching the rules and goals behind them, is to teach how to
>accomplish the goals without the rules.
True, but the SI needs to inspire people too. It could be widened to
apply to a larger interest base.
>So I liked this mandate. But, then again, I have enjoyed all the
>mandates.
>
>I want to take this opportunity to express my thanks to those that do
>all the SI work and put their photographs out there for all of us to
>see.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Paul Furman
not clear who creates the mandates/themes.
Could I request that people post a link in these discussions?
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/root
I totally agree there shouldn't be a prize. I love the mix of pros &
amateurs and the considerate critiques are super educational. I guess
it's useful to show off by pulling a best shot from archives but the
basic premise is to shoot for the theme. Anyways the rule to note if
it's an archive is fine. Even archive shots can provide good discussion
& maybe custom shots are more showing off. If it were about archives, it
could be done in a few days. I wouldn't want it to last more than 2 weeks.
Archive shots are great for discussion.
Fresh shots are good for personal challenge but much more difficult and
might slow lots of folks down. Honestly the discussion is probably the
most valuable so maybe encouraging archives would increase participation.
I liked the breaking the rules mandate though I understand some like
that are perplexing I just could relate to that one. No offense Alan but
I just think that one didn't suit you, which is OK.
Here's the past themes & number of submissions
19 The Pin Hole Photograph (random map location)
40 Motion (really wide subject)
36 Water (really wide subject)
28 Cinema Vérité (tricky but interesting)
(confrontational, heightened realism method of documentary)
25 Night People (I'd guess most people did archive)
27 Boundaries (great broad topic, maybe too broad)
East of the Sun; West of the Moon
Incongruity
Face to Face
SIX
A Bug's Eye View
Change
Rogue's Gallery
Time Lapse
Table Top
The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly
Wildcard
Bah, OK I'm tired of this <g>
"Best Worst Shot" (the new mandate)is a tricky one.
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/bestworst
--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Paul Bielec
My understanding is that SI was created to get people out and take
pictures. That's why new shot are preferred over archived ones.
Owamanga
wrote:
There's nothing quite like flaking-out in the middle of a post..
Pffft.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Bandicoot
> On Wed, 25 May 2005 01:34:31 +0100, "Bandicoot"
> <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote:
>
> >I do like the idea of encouraging a variety in mandate - as
> >indicated above. However, I wonder if having two
> >overlapping sequences, with a mandate due each week,
> >would just be too much.
>
> No, I was thinking of two concurrent mandates, both set at
> the same time, both lasting two weeks.
Ah, I'd assumed you meant set them alternate weeks, each lasting for two
weeks. The net effect would be the same though, and my concern still
applies: too much dilution, too few entries. Hence my suggestion we keep
the current one, two week, mandate at a time timetable, but alternate the
'type' of mandate.
>
> This would allow the very occasional film users to take part
> in both SI's at the same time, if they chose, and process a
> single roll of film once every two weeks.
Maybe...
I can see your point of view, but I still fear we'd have twice the mandates,
but only, maybe, 10% more entries, so each gallery could get very thin. I
think we both understand each others concerns, and we both want the same
thing. Time to see what everyone else thinks on the twin questions of
whether it's a good idea, and if it is, how best to arrange the timetable:
two concurrent SIs, or one with alternating theme/challenge mandates.
Peter
Alan Browne
> This was my first SI so I don't know the history or carry any clout. I'm
> not clear who creates the mandates/themes.
We'll soon be calling for a new series of mandators, so you can toss
your name in the hat at that time. That is to say, the participants are
also mandators. (though it's not neccesary to be a mandator to
participater ... it is hoped that mandators participate as often as
possible).
The SI administrator is currently Al Denelsbeck. Whether he carries
that through round 4 is up to him ... and possibly a vollunteer.
Bandicoot
news:pan.2005.05.25...@home.com...
> On Wed, 25 May 2005 23:03:14 +1000, Graham Fountain wrote:
>
> FWIW, there has been nothing remotely encouraging about
> the last few SI submissions. For people wanting to learn this > craft, the
posting of a fantastic image should provoke more
> encouragement to learn than anything.
No offence Dallas, but the latest gallery doesn't contain a single image
that isn't better than every image you ever submitted to any of the SI
rounds (my own excepted.) If that doesn't inspire you, you're beyond hope!
I'm also strongly against it being a competition. There's plenty of those
on the web already, whereas the SI is unique. If it was a competition I
suspect I'd lose interest, as it would be about submitting pictures that
were likely to have mass appeal rather than those that were interesting -
there's a difference, and that's why most competitions contain so many
technically perfect yet boring pictures.
[SNIP]
>
> If you want success, raise your standards, don't lower them
> into the pit of mediocrity.
You need to submit some (preferably good) work before you can say that.
Standing on the sidelines and sniping wins no points!
Peter
Walt Hanks
"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:111704623...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
>> into the pit of mediocrity.
>
> You need to submit some (preferably good) work before you can say that.
> Standing on the sidelines and sniping wins no points!
>
>
>
> Peter
>
In all fairness. Dallas has submitted 7 images in the current round. His
whiskey bottle was his last submission that I could find. That's more than
many occasional participants. And he does make some good points.
Having said that, I would oppose double mandates and making it a contest. I
would support adding a technical element to some mandates and sharing
technical information as part of each person's submission. The "How'd he do
that?" discussion is something I look forward to.
Walt
Bandicoot
news:hvKdnbQwkPn...@comcast.com...
>
> "Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
> news:111704623...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
> > "Roxy d'Urban" <n...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2005.05.25...@home.com...
> >> If you want success, raise your standards, don't lower
> >> them into the pit of mediocrity.
> >
> > You need to submit some (preferably good) work before
> > you can say that. Standing on the sidelines and sniping
> > wins no points!
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >
>
> In all fairness. Dallas has submitted 7 images in the current
> round.
Yeah, I was a bit grumpy - for completely other reasons, not even connected
with photography - when I wrote that and I should have been politer.
Although I still think Dallas isn't in any position to call some of the
recent excellent submissions mediocre.
Peter
Al Denelsbeck
news:8gs69113r54uu1k5c...@4ax.com:
> [From a discussion that became OT in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems]
>
<snipped since I don't know who's saying what...;-)>
> Alan, you make some good points. I've heard the following suggestion
> before and I think its a good one: We should have run two SI's
> simultaneously, maintaining the current 2 week submission deadline.
>
> Bringing in your complaints; SI-1 should retain it's current format of
> basically anything goes including technical and emotional (arty)
> mandates, SI-2 should be restricted to simpler subject oriented
> challenges (which would probably appeal to more people because a less
> restrictive mandate is easier to meet).
>
> Another way to look at it is whilst SI-1 has a mandate, SI-2 would
> have a subject oriented theme.
>
> Both SI's should be kept at the same www.pbase.com/shootin area so as
> not to split the pack, and submissions to both be encouraged.
>
> What do you think? Can you twist Al's arm?
>
> Anyone?
There's only one person close enough to do it... ;-)
Right at the moment I'll agree with the others that say that we're
suffering right now from a lack of contributions, and think that two
mandates running side-by-side might water this down even more.
I am a little hesitant to jump on the bandwagon and say that the
mandates themselves are at fault for not being inspiring enough. Remember
that any photographer that makes a living from it has to take the subject
matter and *make* it inspiring - there's more skill is taking a mundane
subject and producing art than in simply finding an artsy subject. The idea
of the SI is to challenge the photographer. If anyone doesn't submit
because they're not "inspired", they're trying to blame it on the outside,
rather than the inside.
That said, there are some mandates that spark people more than
others, to be sure, and sometimes the simplest ones ("Water") bring the
most creativity. Something that I've noticed is that, the more restrictive
a mandate is, the more I concentrate on meeting the criteria and the less I
concentrate on making a good image. When I catch myself I try to change
that - I think art comes first, requirements second. Or maybe a better way
of stating it is, compose the photo, then tweak it to meet the requirements
(this was kinda hard with "Parents ;-)).
My own submissions of late have been pretty mediocre (and there's a
few people who will argue this, stating that it's neither "of late" nor a
change of any kind), and there's lots of things to blame, but mostly it's
been all me. Too busy, too tired, rotten weather, and yes, "uninspired". In
a lot of cases I know what I want but can't pull it off within the mandate
period. In some cases I have no idea where to go with it. That's the way it
goes. But almost never, throughout the entire SI, have I submitted what I
considered the best shot I got within the period - the stuff I shoot simply
doesn't fit within the mandates most times. That's the nature of being
"challenged", though, and I learn something almost every time.
So basically, I'm urging people to try to meet the mandates, not let
the mandates come to them. So what if it's crap? There's really nothing on
the line but your pride, and everyone (well. almost) knows that you're
struggling to meet the criteria, and this isn't always easy. Those that
don't understand this aren't worthy of your notice ;-)
Have fun!
- Al.
--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
Al Denelsbeck
news:2m7991ttp7mjd18jl...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 25 May 2005 12:41:51 +0200, Roxy d'Urban <n...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>As far as I am concerned, the SI is well past its sell-by date. For an
>>activity like this to survive it needs to be interesting. The last
>>round of "mandates" have been anything but interesting.
>>
>>IIRC the original concept put forward by Lisa was to encourage us to
>>go out there and shoot something with a common theme, compare our
>>results and learn from one another.
>>
>>Since then the SI has become the domain of the incureably dull, with
>>an occasional glimmer of talent peeking through. In my opinion this is
>>probably because of the subject matter and also the "clique" of
>>posters it seems to have appealed to.
>>
>>In my opinion it should be either shut down or completely revised to
>>give it a fresh appeal.
>>
>>Suggestions regarding the latter?
>>
>>1. Do it once a month.
>
> I think that's too infrequent. The two week time line seems about
> right. A month, and I've forgotten what I entered, a week and I'll
> maybe not get an opportunity to shoot something. Two weeks is perfect.
Ditto that. RPD's "Shootup" seemed to suffer partly from this long
time period, though a lot of other factors contributed too, I know.
>>2. Drop the "mandate" thing and have a broad group of catagories that
>>are always open. If you want to post a portrait or a picture of a bird
>>every month, so what?
>
> Because we can't deluge Al with a mixture of crap randomly appearing
> in his email, there needs to be a reasonably rigid structure.
Not to mention a challenge, which was the whole point.
>>3. Have a winner and a wooden-spoonist every month (as voted for by
>>the entrants).
>
> It's a shootin, not a shootout. It has no winners, and I for one enjoy
> that aspect of it. Adding winners would discourage new participants.
There's so many things wrong with this (Dallas' suggestion of
"winners") that it's hard to know where to start. Actually, no it isn't,
because it's stated pretty clearly that this isn't a competition and that's
exactly how it was intended. Further, you enter into the idea of judging,
which requires finding judges, and the subjectiveness of "quality", which
is a hoot because photography=art=expression, so stuff your judgements
because mine is the only one that counts for my work ;-)
We get new submitters all the time because they find it an
interesting thing to try, and this is almost certainly due to the non-
competitiveness of it.
>>4. Get a sponsored prize for the annual winner on aggregate. Nothing
>>massive, perhaps a B&H voucher or a hamper of photo goodies.
>
> Complicated, and counter productive. This is about the people who
> submit photos, plus those who just browse the results to improve their
> photography. It allows hobbyists (like myself) an excuse to go out and
> photograph something. Adding a coupon into the mix isn't going to help
> much.
I could also add that it would be well-nigh impossible. Businesses
aren't lining up to give stuff away, so obtaining prizes would require some
kind of benefit to them.
By the way, not many people know this, but the actual winning
mandate, by vote, for the anniversary date (XXXIX) wasn't "Photographer's
Choice" but instead, "Special Guest". It had to be abandoned when not one
special guest that I tried ever responded with a simple thing like a
mandate.
>>5. If we go the route of a competition with prizes, there should be an
>>official website where the images are kept and where the sponsor(s)
>>can be represented.
>
> Agreed, but I think we shouldn't move in that direction in the first
> place.
Plus you'd have to get someone else to do it. It's one thing to pop
up the images every two weeks. It's another to start managing sponsors,
ads, and all that crap. There's only so much you get for free. And coming
as it did from someone who's had nothing but excuses instead of submissions
for months, I find this suggestion amusing but hardly compelling.
Al Denelsbeck
news:p3v891p47judk5q3s...@4ax.com:
On behalf of everyone who's ever submitted, you're welcome. But I'll
second Alan's suggestion too, and encourage active participation ;-)
Al Denelsbeck
news:Oa1le.73411$3R6.2...@weber.videotron.net:
> Owamanga wrote:
>
>> Alan, you make some good points. I've heard the following suggestion
>> before and I think its a good one: We should have run two SI's
>> simultaneously, maintaining the current 2 week submission deadline.
>
> Given our current, low, critical mass of participants, I don't see
> this working. MO.
>
>> Bringing in your complaints; SI-1 should retain it's current format
>> of basically anything goes including technical and emotional (arty)
>> mandates, SI-2 should be restricted to simpler subject oriented
>> challenges (which would probably appeal to more people because a less
>> restrictive mandate is easier to meet).
>
> I don't mind that the mandates be technical, but they should be
> positive and specific as opposed to 'lost wax' (breaking the rules)
> and disaster recovery (best of the worst).
Actually, I think specific is what limits it more than many other
factors. I don't have a problem with "negativity", especially since that's
kind of an opinion anyway, but will admit that "best of the worst" leans
towards archive shots rather than being challenging. Every once in a while,
though, this may be a nice change. ..
We'll see what I screw up in the next ten days or so ;-)
>
>> What do you think? Can you twist Al's arm?
>
> Al's arms are easilly twisted but he's otherwise a stubborn old coot.
Who you calling a "coot"? My toes have no webbing whatsoever!
> I would simply implore mandators to consider mandates that will lead
> people to do things that lead to better photography, more appealing
> photography and more creative photography. The recent rash of
> coffin-corner assignments might have a perverse sense of challenge,
> but it's frankly no fun. We're not getting the number of participants
> we used to have either ... in part because (I believe) the mandates
> are getting too narrow for most people to jump into.
Maybe, but as I said in another response, I fault the participants,
not the mandates. We could go with "sunsets" as a subject but damn, that
would get old before the shots even hit the gallery Sunday evening.
It'd be nice if there was a reward (with no commensurate penalty) for
participation, but I'm stumped on that one. Commentary helps I think, and
I'll accept some blame for not offering much of my own lately.
> I recognize that it's not easy coming up with fresh and appealing
> mandates.
Actually, I myself have produced dozens during the SI, which I'll
never get the opportunity to use. What was frightening was seeing how many
ended up appearing from others in slightly modified versions. As for
inspiring? Can't say, really - *I* liked them ;-)
> Other notes:
>
> I've attempted to enlist more participation by posting mandates in
> other groups. I did not post either "breaking" or "Best/Worst" in
> other places as I don't think they would appeal to anyone.
>
> It's spring (sort of) here in the northern hemisphere. I want
> mandates that will get me and others out hunting for new material.
[Ahem!] Coming from the guy almost leading the archive count... ;-)
Given my own chosen subject matter, spring becomes the busiest time
for me, and I need no help in finding pics. The mandates actually interfere
with this, since they rarely fit in. But in a way, that's the point.
So if you're reading this, you should be aware that you have now been
challenged and are *required* to produce a photo for the current mandate.
You had your chance to drop the thread long ago - too late now, and no
excuses! Your lurking days are over. You have that camera for a reason, so
go out there and shoot something.
And while you're at it, this time anyway, be sure you f**k it up ;-)
Al Denelsbeck
news:Y9udnbvOQs5...@speakeasy.net:
> This was my first SI so I don't know the history or carry any clout.
> I'm not clear who creates the mandates/themes.
Basically, the call goes out near and far, to all surfaces of the
cube or whatever, saying that if you want a turn, speak now or forever
complain that the SI is off-topic. After a period of time determined by
moon phases I think, the call is retracted and those who responded are
ordered by popularity or bribe amount, and given a date that they are
responsible to completely forget. On or about that date, they announce
their mandate to the jeers and catcalls of others.
Or to put it more accurately, near the beginning of each round we
tell everyone that if they want a shot at it, send in an e-mail. All
respondents are then placed in random order and assigned to a particular
date, whereupon they announce their mandate on that date.
And yes, as Jim Kramer indicated, Round 4 (not 3) is due out soon.
I'm just not going to give him the satisfaction of pressuring me ;-)
> Could I request that people post a link in these discussions?
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/root
We tend to forget to keep putting in links, though I try to be
consistent in linking the new mandate and new gallery pages. Throughout the
site, there are links to the rulz page, with additional resources available
therein.
> I totally agree there shouldn't be a prize. I love the mix of pros &
> amateurs and the considerate critiques are super educational. I guess
> it's useful to show off by pulling a best shot from archives but the
> basic premise is to shoot for the theme. Anyways the rule to note if
> it's an archive is fine. Even archive shots can provide good
> discussion & maybe custom shots are more showing off. If it were about
> archives, it could be done in a few days. I wouldn't want it to last
> more than 2 weeks.
>
> Archive shots are great for discussion.
> Fresh shots are good for personal challenge but much more difficult
> and might slow lots of folks down. Honestly the discussion is probably
> the most valuable so maybe encouraging archives would increase
> participation.
Speaking as one who, in the past when I commented semi-routinely,
picked upon the archive submissions, I will offer my own standpoint:
Archive shots are far less challenging and present no effort on the
part of the photographer, which was the original point of the SI. Moreover,
for those who have a significant stock, it allows them to trounce the
inexperienced photographers who have to produce something within the two
weeks. I discourage archives because I prefer to see people out there
shooting and trying to fit within the restrictions of the mandate. It can
be hard sometimes, and the playing field should be level.
All that said, the worst that I can do is pick on you and call you a
no-good peepants. No, that's not true, since I can actually just toss out
your archive submission, ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaa! But I try not to abuse
that power ;-)
> I liked the breaking the rules mandate though I understand some like
> that are perplexing I just could relate to that one. No offense Alan
> but I just think that one didn't suit you, which is OK.
>
> Here's the past themes & number of submissions
> 19 The Pin Hole Photograph (random map location)
> 40 Motion (really wide subject)
> 36 Water (really wide subject)
> 28 Cinema Vérité (tricky but interesting)
> (confrontational, heightened realism method of documentary)
> 25 Night People (I'd guess most people did archive)
> 27 Boundaries (great broad topic, maybe too broad)
> East of the Sun; West of the Moon
> Incongruity
> Face to Face
> SIX
> A Bug's Eye View
> Change
> Rogue's Gallery
> Time Lapse
> Table Top
> The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly
> Wildcard
>
> Bah, OK I'm tired of this <g>
You should have tried it on a spreadsheet ;-)
http://www.aliasimages.com/si/ShootInTally.html
I haven't kept up with this in a long time, but will gladly send the
last version to anyone who requests it.
Or you can use http://www.pbase.com/shootin/root&view=tree
> "Best Worst Shot" (the new mandate)is a tricky one.
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/bestworst
Naaahh, it's easy! Just hose the camera around with utter abandon and
pick the resulting image that seems to have the least smidgen of artistic
merit - preferably by having something located precisely one-third of the
way in from the edge or corner...
Colin D
Al Denelsbeck wrote:
<snip>
> - preferably by having something located precisely one-third of the
> way in from the edge or corner...
>
> ;-)
>
> - Al.
>
No, No, remember TP? It's gotta be 38.2% in - Golden Section and all
that ... {:-)
Colin
Ryadia@Home
>
> So basically, I'm urging people to try to meet the mandates, not let
> the mandates come to them. So what if it's crap? There's really nothing on
> the line but your pride, and everyone (well. almost) knows that you're
> struggling to meet the criteria, and this isn't always easy. Those that
> don't understand this aren't worthy of your notice ;-)
>
> Have fun!
>
>
> - Al.
>
What you are saying Al is that despite a ground swell of opinion seeking
clearer mandates, you'll stick with the current dumb and often
meaningless mandates and if anyone doesn't like it, don't participate...
Is that it or did I read your wrong?
Douglas
Roxy d'Urban
>>>1. Do it once a month.
>>
>> I think that's too infrequent. The two week time line seems about right.
>> A month, and I've forgotten what I entered, a week and I'll maybe not
>> get an opportunity to shoot something. Two weeks is perfect.
>
> Ditto that. RPD's "Shootup" seemed to suffer partly from this long
> time period, though a lot of other factors contributed too, I know.
I think you would get more entries if it was a monthly. The Sootup
suffered because it was run in a group that doesn't comprise all that many
photographers, plus the SI had already been relatively successful.
>
>>>2. Drop the "mandate" thing and have a broad group of catagories that
>>>are always open. If you want to post a portrait or a picture of a bird
>>>every month, so what?
>>
>> Because we can't deluge Al with a mixture of crap randomly appearing in
>> his email, there needs to be a reasonably rigid structure.
>
> Not to mention a challenge, which was the whole point.
You guys are not using your imaginations much, are you? Nearly every
camera club in the world has a bunch of broad catagories they use to allow
their members to submit in monthly competitions.
Off the top of my head;
1. Sports.
2. People.
3. Objects.
4. Landscapes.
5. Wildlife.
6. Flora & fauna.
That's half the year already.
>
>>>3. Have a winner and a wooden-spoonist every month (as voted for by the
>>>entrants).
>>
>> It's a shootin, not a shootout. It has no winners, and I for one enjoy
>> that aspect of it. Adding winners would discourage new participants.
>
> There's so many things wrong with this (Dallas' suggestion of
> "winners") that it's hard to know where to start. Actually, no it isn't,
> because it's stated pretty clearly that this isn't a competition and
> that's exactly how it was intended. Further, you enter into the idea of
> judging, which requires finding judges, and the subjectiveness of
> "quality", which is a hoot because photography=art=expression, so stuff
> your judgements because mine is the only one that counts for my work ;-)
Maybe you didn't read the original message in your haste to haul out your
whip, Al. The general concensus is that the SI is becoming dull because of
the mandates offered. I offered some "suggestions" to spice it up a bit.
As for the "judging", there would be none. Each entrant gets one vote to
decide what picture they feel is the best for the month. They can't vote
for their own image and if we really wanted to make it interesting, we
could leave off the names of the photographers in the gallery until all
the votes were in.
> We get new submitters all the time because they find it an
> interesting thing to try, and this is almost certainly due to the non-
> competitiveness of it.
It doesn't take a genius to see how participation has fared over the past
year or so. It's declined.
>
>>>4. Get a sponsored prize for the annual winner on aggregate. Nothing
>>>massive, perhaps a B&H voucher or a hamper of photo goodies.
>>
>> Complicated, and counter productive. This is about the people who submit
>> photos, plus those who just browse the results to improve their
>> photography. It allows hobbyists (like myself) an excuse to go out and
>> photograph something. Adding a coupon into the mix isn't going to help
>> much.
>
> I could also add that it would be well-nigh impossible. Businesses
> aren't lining up to give stuff away, so obtaining prizes would require
> some kind of benefit to them.
What are you expecting to win? An EOS1DsII??? Christ, a small film hamper
or a memory card would hardly make a dent in an organisations fiscal
affairs, would it? What if the prizes are pooled together by all the
participants?
> By the way, not many people know this, but the actual winning
> mandate, by vote, for the anniversary date (XXXIX) wasn't "Photographer's
> Choice" but instead, "Special Guest". It had to be abandoned when not one
> special guest that I tried ever responded with a simple thing like a
> mandate.
Maybe it's because you can't see the wood for the trees. Not too many
people interested in whipping a dead horse.
>
>>>5. If we go the route of a competition with prizes, there should be an
>>>official website where the images are kept and where the sponsor(s) can
>>>be represented.
>>
>> Agreed, but I think we shouldn't move in that direction in the first
>> place.
>
> Plus you'd have to get someone else to do it. It's one thing to pop
> up the images every two weeks. It's another to start managing sponsors,
> ads, and all that crap. There's only so much you get for free. And coming
> as it did from someone who's had nothing but excuses instead of
> submissions for months, I find this suggestion amusing but hardly
> compelling.
Cheap shots, as usual. I know you are no dab hand at web design, but it
really isn't a big job to put an animated or static banner up on a page.
Sponsorship isn't "crap". It's what makes our world go around.
As for my participation here's a fistful of reasons why you haven't seen
me in a while:
Ugly America, Faking it, Cute, Parents, Breaking the rules (to list but a
few).
Roxy d'Urban
> No offence Dallas, but the latest gallery doesn't contain a single image
> that isn't better than every image you ever submitted to any of the SI
> rounds (my own excepted.) If that doesn't inspire you, you're beyond
> hope!
None taken, but it's possibly because I am confused by what you said. Are
you saying that all the current images are better than anything I
submitted? The only image I see on that gallery that looks remotely
interesting is Alan Browne's (but I fail to see how it breaks any "rules").
> I'm also strongly against it being a competition. There's plenty of those
> on the web already, whereas the SI is unique. If it was a competition I
> suspect I'd lose interest, as it would be about submitting pictures that
> were likely to have mass appeal rather than those that were interesting -
> there's a difference, and that's why most competitions contain so many
> technically perfect yet boring pictures.
But a competition in this group would be way more interesting than any
other competition where you don't know who you are up against.
> [SNIP]
>>
>> If you want success, raise your standards, don't lower them into the pit
>> of mediocrity.
>
> You need to submit some (preferably good) work before you can say that.
> Standing on the sidelines and sniping wins no points!
See my reply to Al in another part of the thread.
Roxy d'Urban
> Right at the moment I'll agree with the others that say that we're
> suffering right now from a lack of contributions, and think that two
> mandates running side-by-side might water this down even more.
It's not just the number of mandates, it's the nature of those mandates
and the lack of good images that they produce.
SI is stale. It needs a shot in the arm.
> I am a little hesitant to jump on the bandwagon and say that the
> mandates themselves are at fault for not being inspiring enough. Remember
> that any photographer that makes a living from it has to take the subject
> matter and *make* it inspiring - there's more skill is taking a mundane
> subject and producing art than in simply finding an artsy subject. The
> idea of the SI is to challenge the photographer. If anyone doesn't submit
> because they're not "inspired", they're trying to blame it on the outside,
> rather than the inside.
How many of the last few contributions are from people who make their
living with photography? Besides, there are many who will argue that
photography isn't art anyway. In my opinion it's a craft, not an art.
> That said, there are some mandates that spark people more than
> others, to be sure, and sometimes the simplest ones ("Water") bring the
> most creativity. Something that I've noticed is that, the more restrictive
> a mandate is, the more I concentrate on meeting the criteria and the less
> I concentrate on making a good image. When I catch myself I try to change
> that - I think art comes first, requirements second. Or maybe a better way
> of stating it is, compose the photo, then tweak it to meet the
> requirements (this was kinda hard with "Parents ;-)).
>
> My own submissions of late have been pretty mediocre (and there's a
> few people who will argue this, stating that it's neither "of late" nor a
> change of any kind), and there's lots of things to blame, but mostly it's
> been all me. Too busy, too tired, rotten weather, and yes, "uninspired".
> In a lot of cases I know what I want but can't pull it off within the
> mandate period. In some cases I have no idea where to go with it. That's
> the way it goes. But almost never, throughout the entire SI, have I
> submitted what I considered the best shot I got within the period - the
> stuff I shoot simply doesn't fit within the mandates most times. That's
> the nature of being "challenged", though, and I learn something almost
> every time.
>
> So basically, I'm urging people to try to meet the mandates, not let
> the mandates come to them. So what if it's crap? There's really nothing on
> the line but your pride, and everyone (well. almost) knows that you're
> struggling to meet the criteria, and this isn't always easy. Those that
> don't understand this aren't worthy of your notice ;-)
Now I just can't understand why anyone would want to submit something just
for the sake of submitting. If I can't make an image that I think is
worthy of participation, I won't submit one. That said, I haven't
participated for many of the same reasons you describe, not least of which
is "what for?".
Duncan Chesley
wrote:
>Duncan Chesley <BioC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> A persepctive from an experienced amateur lurker ...
[Snip]
> On behalf of everyone who's ever submitted, you're welcome. But I'll
>second Alan's suggestion too, and encourage active participation ;-)
Thanks to Alan and Al for the encouragement. I said experienced, and
didn't mean to imply I was any good at it. I do keep the mandates in
mind, though. And sometimes I even get a chance to use my camera. It I
ever make a pic that wouldn't embarass me and dramatically lower SI's
quality average, I'll send it in.
Duncan C.
Al Denelsbeck
news:42955b2f$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au:
You read it wrong. Or, it would appear, not at all. Can't help you
with your reading comprehension, sorry.
Al Denelsbeck
news:pan.2005.05.26....@home.com:
Funny, I think the same thing when I see most of your posts, so I
have a hard time believing you avoid the effort unless it's well spent.
But it's always been the case that the noisiest squallers are the
ones who ain't producing anything.
Sorry the SI isn't what you want it to be. Go find your camera clubs,
and have fun not taking pictures!
Roxy d'Urban
>> What you are saying Al is that despite a ground swell of opinion seeking
>> clearer mandates, you'll stick with the current dumb and often
>> meaningless mandates and if anyone doesn't like it, don't participate...
>> Is that it or did I read your wrong?
>
> You read it wrong. Or, it would appear, not at all. Can't help you
> with your reading comprehension, sorry.
I think it's time for a new broom. This one is just sweeping the shit
under the carpet.
Roxy d'Urban
> Funny, I think the same thing when I see most of your posts, so I
> have a hard time believing you avoid the effort unless it's well spent.
>
> But it's always been the case that the noisiest squallers are the
> ones who ain't producing anything.
>
> Sorry the SI isn't what you want it to be. Go find your camera clubs,
> and have fun not taking pictures!
The reply of a complete retard.
Another reason I don't participate is because of you. You have the
administrative capabilities of a sea-horse and the personality of an
amusement park ride attendant. With all the downtime and server errors you
bitch about, any normal person would simply change service providers.
Al Denelsbeck
news:pan.2005.05.26....@home.com:
> On Thu, 26 May 2005 01:35:12 +0000, Al Denelsbeck wrote:
>
>>>>1. Do it once a month.
>>>
>>> I think that's too infrequent. The two week time line seems about
>>> right. A month, and I've forgotten what I entered, a week and I'll
>>> maybe not get an opportunity to shoot something. Two weeks is
>>> perfect.
>>
>> Ditto that. RPD's "Shootup" seemed to suffer partly from
>> this long
>> time period, though a lot of other factors contributed too, I know.
>
> I think you would get more entries if it was a monthly. The Sootup
> suffered because it was run in a group that doesn't comprise all that
> many photographers, plus the SI had already been relatively
> successful.
Considering that it was run in a group with about 300% more posts
than this one, and that there was no stipulation about it requiring being a
"photographer", I kinda doubt that there was any lack of people to respond.
Plus they had the nice broad categories that you like. The dropoff occurred
immediately.
You can also see it if you watched the various subject suggestions on
alt.binaries.photos.original. Interest wanes in a week.
>>
>>>>2. Drop the "mandate" thing and have a broad group of catagories
>>>>that are always open. If you want to post a portrait or a picture of
>>>>a bird every month, so what?
>>>
>>> Because we can't deluge Al with a mixture of crap randomly appearing
>>> in his email, there needs to be a reasonably rigid structure.
>>
>> Not to mention a challenge, which was the whole point.
>
> You guys are not using your imaginations much, are you? Nearly every
> camera club in the world has a bunch of broad catagories they use to
> allow their members to submit in monthly competitions.
>
> Off the top of my head;
>
> 1. Sports.
> 2. People.
> 3. Objects.
> 4. Landscapes.
> 5. Wildlife.
> 6. Flora & fauna.
>
> That's half the year already.
And this is supposed to be "using your imagination"? Or, for that
matter, challenging? I tend to see this as "pick something that fits out of
what you've taken in the past month".
> Maybe you didn't read the original message in your haste to haul out
> your whip, Al. The general concensus is that the SI is becoming dull
> because of the mandates offered. I offered some "suggestions" to spice
> it up a bit.
You offered an opinion, I offered mine. Welcome to Usenet - Your
Guarantee of Hearing Things You Won't Like to Hear!
I have no control over the mandates, save for the next one, and
that's been chosen since 2004. It's up to the participants to chose them -
I just post 'em. But given the wide range of choices in the past few
months, I find it a cop out if you still can't find anything to work with
in there.
Oh, yeah, you're supposed to "like" it, aren't you? Maybe you should
create your own mandates, and shoot them each month. My suggestion would be
"pictures I never shot".
> As for the "judging", there would be none. Each entrant gets one vote
> to decide what picture they feel is the best for the month. They can't
> vote for their own image and if we really wanted to make it
> interesting, we could leave off the names of the photographers in the
> gallery until all the votes were in.
I say again, the idea was that this was no competition. And despite
your jumping up and down over the "consensus", this one's heartily against
you.
Part of the interest in the SI, as far as I'm concerned, has been the
variety of responses to individual shots when the commentary rolls around.
Alan and I are often at odds over one pic, in complete agreement over
another. That's part of the "art" of photography - it evokes different
things from different people. It's also why I think most competitions are
total crap - the rely on the opinion of the judges.
And basically, what it would come down to is the judging coming from
the same twelve people that submit routinely anyway. And we already have
that with the commentary, more or less, except the commentary provides a
lot more useful information.
>> We get new submitters all the time because they find it an
>> interesting thing to try, and this is almost certainly due to the
>> non- competitiveness of it.
>
> It doesn't take a genius to see how participation has fared over the
> past year or so. It's declined.
>
>>
>>>>4. Get a sponsored prize for the annual winner on aggregate. Nothing
>>>>massive, perhaps a B&H voucher or a hamper of photo goodies.
>>>
>>> Complicated, and counter productive. This is about the people who
>>> submit photos, plus those who just browse the results to improve
>>> their photography. It allows hobbyists (like myself) an excuse to go
>>> out and photograph something. Adding a coupon into the mix isn't
>>> going to help much.
>>
>> I could also add that it would be well-nigh impossible.
>> Businesses
>> aren't lining up to give stuff away, so obtaining prizes would
>> require some kind of benefit to them.
>
> What are you expecting to win? An EOS1DsII??? Christ, a small film
> hamper or a memory card would hardly make a dent in an organisations
> fiscal affairs, would it? What if the prizes are pooled together by
> all the participants?
Jesus, Dallas, do you continually speak out of your ass, or do you
occasionally talk about something you have the slightest experience with?
You can skip the answer to that one, I already know it...
But coming from someone who's spent 7 years working for non-profits,
getting donations isn't simply a matter of asking - there has to be a
motivation for the donator.
And then, or course, there's the matter of who would be in charge of
collecting it and getting it to the winner. Submmissions still come in
worldwide. Or I suppose I could just leave them on my porch for pickup,
right?
>> By the way, not many people know this, but the actual
>> winning
>> mandate, by vote, for the anniversary date (XXXIX) wasn't
>> "Photographer's Choice" but instead, "Special Guest". It had to be
>> abandoned when not one special guest that I tried ever responded with
>> a simple thing like a mandate.
>
> Maybe it's because you can't see the wood for the trees. Not too many
> people interested in whipping a dead horse.
Again, there's the number of posts you make for no reason that seems
to give the lie to this one.
>>>>5. If we go the route of a competition with prizes, there should be
>>>>an official website where the images are kept and where the
>>>>sponsor(s) can be represented.
>>>
>>> Agreed, but I think we shouldn't move in that direction in the first
>>> place.
>>
>> Plus you'd have to get someone else to do it. It's one thing
>> to pop
>> up the images every two weeks. It's another to start managing
>> sponsors, ads, and all that crap. There's only so much you get for
>> free. And coming as it did from someone who's had nothing but excuses
>> instead of submissions for months, I find this suggestion amusing but
>> hardly compelling.
>
> Cheap shots, as usual. I know you are no dab hand at web design, but
> it really isn't a big job to put an animated or static banner up on a
> page. Sponsorship isn't "crap". It's what makes our world go around.
Sponsorship isn't about simply sticking an ad up on a site (where
you'd have to have permission to do so anyway, so now you're talking moving
to a domain that supports it). It's always contracted, requires a
sustainable number of hits to guarantee attention to the ad, and requires
somebody who wants to spend their time negotiating with the sponsors. In
case you missed it, that ain't gonna be me.
> As for my participation here's a fistful of reasons why you haven't
> seen me in a while:
>
> Ugly America, Faking it, Cute, Parents, Breaking the rules (to list
> but a few).
As I said, if you can't find something to shoot in there, you're
whining instead of trying. Weren't you enthusing about your new camera
right smack in the middle of those (right before your mean ol' truck spat
it out onto the pavement)? Seems to me like you were given some nice test
subjects - ONE OF WHICH YOU ACTUALLY SHOT. Or were you waiting for
"forklifts"?
Or are you simply a whiny bitch?
I probably should have asked that right at the beginning, shouldn't
I?
Al Denelsbeck
> On Thu, 26 May 2005 11:14:16 +0000, Al Denelsbeck wrote:
>
>> Funny, I think the same thing when I see most of your posts,
>> so I
>> have a hard time believing you avoid the effort unless it's well
>> spent.
>>
>> But it's always been the case that the noisiest squallers
>> are the
>> ones who ain't producing anything.
>>
>> Sorry the SI isn't what you want it to be. Go find your
>> camera clubs,
>> and have fun not taking pictures!
>
> The reply of a complete retard.
>
> Another reason I don't participate is because of you. You have the
> administrative capabilities of a sea-horse and the personality of an
> amusement park ride attendant.
Ah, we can't all be as sparkly and lovable as you, Dallas.
> With all the downtime and server errors
> you bitch about, any normal person would simply change service
> providers.
Amazing deduction there, Sparky. Only I have a subdomain to think
about, and right at the moment that administrator has to agree to it. Not
to mention that moving a site requires quite a few hours of screwing around
and a certain amount of down time (i.e., several days) waiting for DNS
updating. And that would mean, at some point in there, losing the ability
to administer the SI.
Ah, but you have this all figured out, don't you? Come on, wow us all
again with your brilliance in something you don't have the slightest
experience in.
Roxy d'Urban
>> Another reason I don't participate is because of you. You have the
>> administrative capabilities of a sea-horse and the personality of an
>> amusement park ride attendant.
>
> Ah, we can't all be as sparkly and lovable as you, Dallas.
Clearly.
>> With all the downtime and server errors you bitch about, any normal
>> person would simply change service providers.
>
> Amazing deduction there, Sparky. Only I have a subdomain to think
> about, and right at the moment that administrator has to agree to it.
> Not to mention that moving a site requires quite a few hours of screwing
> around and a certain amount of down time (i.e., several days) waiting
> for DNS updating. And that would mean, at some point in there, losing
> the ability to administer the SI.
>
> Ah, but you have this all figured out, don't you? Come on, wow us
> all
> again with your brilliance in something you don't have the slightest
> experience in.
I administer three websites/domains and am currently investigating a
full-blown e-commerce venture that I will manage entirely on my own. Is
there something I can help you with? You seem to need a lot of help. In
fact you are so far off the mark with this latest outburst that I expect
you might have been drinking (or injecting yourself with something).
How many times have you moaned about your news server not picking up all
the messages, or your email not working? Plenty. On three occasions I sent
you submissions for the SI and you received NONE of them. Also seen
many people sending messages to this forum asking what became of
their submissions. Did you bin them all because you don't like the
entrants?
Above all else, what the SI needs is an impartial administrator. Based on
your attitude in this thread you just don't fit the bill anymore.
Roxy d'Urban
> Roxy d'Urban <n...@home.com> wrote in
>> I think you would get more entries if it was a monthly. The Sootup
>> suffered because it was run in a group that doesn't comprise all that
>> many photographers, plus the SI had already been relatively successful.
>
> Considering that it was run in a group with about 300% more posts
> than this one, and that there was no stipulation about it requiring being
> a "photographer", I kinda doubt that there was any lack of people to
> respond. Plus they had the nice broad categories that you like. The
> dropoff occurred immediately.
I have never participated in r.p.d so I can't say for sure what the
underlying causes were, but the people posting there are cut from a
different cloth to those posting here.
> You can also see it if you watched the various subject suggestions on
> alt.binaries.photos.original. Interest wanes in a week.
Pass.
> And this is supposed to be "using your imagination"? Or, for that
> matter, challenging? I tend to see this as "pick something that fits out
> of what you've taken in the past month".
Is this SI about improving your photography or seeing if you can find a
photo opportunity that fits the often ridiculous "mandate"?
> I have no control over the mandates, save for the next one, and
> that's been chosen since 2004. It's up to the participants to chose them -
> I just post 'em. But given the wide range of choices in the past few
> months, I find it a cop out if you still can't find anything to work with
> in there.
I would rather "cop out" than send in an image I wasn't happy with, just
for the sake of participation. However, if there was a motivational factor
like a competitive edge, I would be a lot more interested in it than I am
right now.
> Oh, yeah, you're supposed to "like" it, aren't you? Maybe
you
> should
> create your own mandates, and shoot them each month. My suggestion would
> be "pictures I never shot".
Gee Al, you're such a riot.
> I say again, the idea was that this was no competition. And despite
> your jumping up and down over the "consensus", this one's heartily
> against you.
Is it really? Would you put a wager on that considering that the opinions
are only being proposed by those people who haven't killfiled the [SI]
prefix, such as the one in this very thread?
> Part of the interest in the SI, as far as I'm concerned, has been
> the
> variety of responses to individual shots when the commentary rolls
> around. Alan and I are often at odds over one pic, in complete agreement
> over another. That's part of the "art" of photography - it evokes
> different things from different people. It's also why I think most
> competitions are total crap - the rely on the opinion of the judges.
Alan and yourself are at odds with the world, not just each other.
Commentary is always welcome, but in so far as the SI is concerned, there
are only about two or three regular commentators.
> And basically, what it would come down to is the judging coming
> from
> the same twelve people that submit routinely anyway. And we already have
> that with the commentary, more or less, except the commentary provides a
> lot more useful information.
Rubbish. Utter rubbish.
The commentary is slanted in a lot of instances by the names of the
contributors. For instance, I DOUBT that if I were to submit anything to
an SI of late you would have anything constructive to say about it.
But you entirely missed the point - there would be NO judging coming into
it. The winner would be decided by means of voting, not judging.
> Jesus, Dallas, do you continually speak out of your ass, or do you
> occasionally talk about something you have the slightest experience
> with? You can skip the answer to that one, I already know it...
>
> But coming from someone who's spent 7 years working for
> non-profits,
> getting donations isn't simply a matter of asking - there has to be a
> motivation for the donator.
<sigh> Seven years and that's all you can come up with? The typically
defeated-before-we've-begun attitude.
What about this: we get a few benefactors on the group to club together
and sponsor a B&H voucher. I'm sure Henry might be able to arrange that
the vouchers could be pooled and then allocated to the ultimate winner at
the end of the competition.
> And then, or course, there's the matter of who would be in charge
> of
> collecting it and getting it to the winner. Submmissions still come in
> worldwide. Or I suppose I could just leave them on my porch for pickup,
> right?
Gee Al, do you think it is not possible to buy a B&H voucher online and
have it sent to a third party? In this instance the third party would be
designated as the "RPE35mm Competition winner" - to be announced on
X-date. B&H gets a LOT of good publicity on this group - I am sure they
won't mind bending their system to accommodate such a request. We can only
ask.
>> Maybe it's because you can't see the wood for the trees. Not too many
>> people interested in whipping a dead horse.
>
> Again, there's the number of posts you make for no reason that
> seems
> to give the lie to this one.
What have you posted in the last week that has been on benefit to anyone
other than your over-inflated ego?
> Sponsorship isn't about simply sticking an ad up on a site (where
> you'd have to have permission to do so anyway, so now you're talking
> moving to a domain that supports it). It's always contracted, requires a
> sustainable number of hits to guarantee attention to the ad, and
> requires somebody who wants to spend their time negotiating with the
> sponsors. In case you missed it, that ain't gonna be me.
No, I never missed it. So we get a domain going. I can sponsor that. Along
with hosting, if it makes you happy. Shit, I'll even contribute to the B&H
voucher if that's the easiest way of getting a prize to the winner.
> As I said, if you can't find something to shoot in there, you're
> whining instead of trying. Weren't you enthusing about your new camera
> right smack in the middle of those (right before your mean ol' truck
> spat it out onto the pavement)? Seems to me like you were given some
> nice test subjects - ONE OF WHICH YOU ACTUALLY SHOT. Or were you waiting
> for "forklifts"?
Where would that image have slotted in? Maybe I wasn't paying attention,
or maybe I am a bit more discerning about what I submit to the SI.
> Or are you simply a whiny bitch?
>
> I probably should have asked that right at the beginning, shouldn't
> I?
Whatever floats your boat, Al.
Alan Browne
> I am a little hesitant to jump on the bandwagon and say that the
> mandates themselves are at fault for not being inspiring enough. Remember
> that any photographer that makes a living from it has to take the subject
> matter and *make* it inspiring - there's more skill is taking a mundane
> subject and producing art than in simply finding an artsy subject. The idea
How many photographers get the assignment: "Take your bad photos and
make the best of it"? "Your assignement is to break photographic
rules. When are you picking up your cheque?"
> So basically, I'm urging people to try to meet the mandates, not let
> the mandates come to them. So what if it's crap? There's really nothing on
> the line but your pride, and everyone (well. almost) knows that you're
> struggling to meet the criteria, and this isn't always easy. Those that
> don't understand this aren't worthy of your notice ;-)
And I'm urging the mandators to be realistic in terms of photography.
Let's have subjects that appealing and itneresting. Not pony tricks.
>
> Have fun!
I would if...
Cheers,
Alan
Alan Browne
> Thanks to Alan and Al for the encouragement. I said experienced, and
> didn't mean to imply I was any good at it. I do keep the mandates in
> mind, though. And sometimes I even get a chance to use my camera. It I
> ever make a pic that wouldn't embarass me and dramatically lower SI's
> quality average, I'll send it in.
Put yourself in a Nike mood.
Alan Browne
> Actually, I myself have produced dozens during the SI, which I'll
> never get the opportunity to use. What was frightening was seeing how many
> ended up appearing from others in slightly modified versions. As for
> inspiring? Can't say, really - *I* liked them ;-)
Then have everyone post, here, a variety of mandates and then let
mandators, in turn, pick from the list if they're not able to come up
with something.
>>It's spring (sort of) here in the northern hemisphere. I want
>>mandates that will get me and others out hunting for new material.
>
>
> [Ahem!] Coming from the guy almost leading the archive count... ;-)
Has nothing to do with honest to goodness laziness.
Cheers,
Alan
Lisa Horton
Owamanga wrote:
>
> [From a discussion that became OT in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems]
>
> <alan....@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >Owamanga wrote:
> >
> >>Alan Browne wrote:
> >>
> >>>The 'break the rules' and the current "Best Worst" are examples of
> >>>things in the SI that do not challenge us to do better photography.
> >>
> >> I disagree with the first half: Break the rules was a challenge
> >> because the mandate was "Break the rules and come up with an image
> >> *that still works*". That last bit is important to the mandate. As it
> >> turned out, I had a recent shot that met (IMHO) the criteria so never
> >> did get around to shooting something specifically for it.
> >
> >"Break the rules", IMO, focuses on what it is supposed to be breaking
> >away from.
> >
> >I'd rather make photos that reply to a need for a themed photo and not a
> >need to focus on rules, positively or negatively.
> >
> >(Note: in my former photo club, there would be a variety of themes.
> >Whenever the themes were subject oriented ("non studio portraits",
> >"Rivers", "Trees", etc. the photography presented would be great.
> >Whenever the themes were 'technical', that is to say: "Contrast",
> >"Vertical perspective", etc., the photography was the most stilted. On
> >could say that the aspect themese were more challenging. I would say
> >that the themes that produced the best photography were the most useful
> >for everyone. Hence my position above.)
> >
> >>>I hope the remaining mandators get back to challenging us to do
> >>>interesting things instead of pony tricks.
> >>
> >> Harsh...
> >
> >Maybe. I just want some target that's inspiring. To me the last two
> >mandates were anything but.
>
> Alan, you make some good points. I've heard the following suggestion
> before and I think its a good one: We should have run two SI's
> simultaneously, maintaining the current 2 week submission deadline.
>
> basically anything goes including technical and emotional (arty)
> mandates, SI-2 should be restricted to simpler subject oriented
> challenges (which would probably appeal to more people because a less
> restrictive mandate is easier to meet).
>
> have a subject oriented theme.
>
> Both SI's should be kept at the same www.pbase.com/shootin area so as
> not to split the pack, and submissions to both be encouraged.
>
>
>
I would suggest that coming up with a really good mandate isn't actually
easy. Ideally a mandate will provide a challenge to a wide range of
skill and ability levels, and produce interesting photos, and be
interesting and/or fun to do.
I see mandates easily divided into two broad categories, technically
oriented, subject oriented, and other, which I guess makes three.
The technical ones, while more specific, allow any subject, letting
people photograph the things that they're comfortable and familiar with,
if they like.
The subject oriented mandates are the ones I think work best. They
often get photographers out of or away from what they usually
photograph. They allow a variety of techniques and approaches. I think
they inspire the most creativity.
An approach to mandates that I think works well is for the mandator to
imagine they are, say, a magazine editor giving an assignment to a
photographer. Like "we're doing a story on time/water/beauty, but we're
not quite sure of the specific direction. So go shoot a bunch of photos
on that subject" Or something like that.
And finally, I would see nothing wrong with a mandator, faced with a
dearth of ideas, soliciting suggestions for their mandate. Lots of
people here, with lots of ideas.
Lisa
Lisa Horton
Dallas, I think that you're missing an important point. Changing the
shootin to a competition fundamentally alters what it is. It wouldn't
be a shootin any more. There's nothing wrong with competitions, they
have their good points, but they are a completely different animal than
the shootin.
Likewise, trying to commercialize it is incongruous with the community
based, home grown nature of the shootin.
Notwithstanding the above, it's also true that the shootin, as a
community based and driven project, by it's nature should tend to be an
organic type of thing, very possibly changing over time. A good example
of this is the way the scheduling of the mandates was changed, by
popular demand.
Lisa
Ken Nadvornick
> The subject oriented mandates are the ones I think work best.
Speaking only for myself, this is all I was trying to say earlier. I'm not
quite sure where all of the overt hostility between everyone else is coming
from...
IMHO the SI does not need to be structurally changed. The period is fine.
The mandator mechanism works well. Judging indirectly by page hits (and
posts like Duncan Chesley's), viewing interest still seems high. And it
does *not* need to become a competitive exercise. (If it ever does, I'll
simply wish everyone the best and quietly fade away.)
Only the participation of late has lagged, myself included. And I think
Lisa and a few others may have zeroed in on the cause. However, rather than
a scorched-earth approach to changing everything, I'm perfectly content to
wait until a mandate comes along which better fits with my reasons for
participation. The SI, after all, was not created to revolve around me -
and I don't expect it to do so.
[Now... where's those new red safelights?]
Ken
Alan Browne
> "Lisa Horton" wrote:
>
>
>>The subject oriented mandates are the ones I think work best.
>
>
> Speaking only for myself, this is all I was trying to say earlier. I'm not
> quite sure where all of the overt hostility between everyone else is coming
> from...
Hostility?
>
> IMHO the SI does not need to be structurally changed. The period is fine.
> The mandator mechanism works well. Judging indirectly by page hits (and
> posts like Duncan Chesley's), viewing interest still seems high. And it
> does *not* need to become a competitive exercise. (If it ever does, I'll
> simply wish everyone the best and quietly fade away.)
The main issue at hand is the recent mandates that are not getting
anyone juiced up.
Doug Payne
> [...] I'm perfectly content to
> wait until a mandate comes along which better fits with my reasons for
> participation. The SI, after all, was not created to revolve around me -
> and I don't expect it to do so.
Agreed; that's been my position pretty much since day 1. I submit when
it pleases me to do so, and I refrain when it doesn't.
Ryadia@Home
and buy a PC for a few bucks and get someone who actually does know what
they are talking about to install Linux SME on it and cure all your
problems in one fell swoop.
Then, later, when you think it's safe to go back in the water, you might
get a broadband connection to the Internet and we can all see what's
going on.
Somehow I get the feeling you are better situated putting people down
than listening to what they have to say. "from the mouths of babes", Al.
Everyone has something you can learn from but you seem hell bent on the
control factor to the detriment of the whole thing.
Why don't you just accept the fact that you stuffed it up and give it to
someone who has the time and desire to get it rolling again?
Douglas
Alan Browne
>
> Somehow I get the feeling you are better situated putting people down
> than listening to what they have to say.
Something about black pots and kettles here.
Paul Bielec
> Ken Nadvornick wrote:
>
>> "Lisa Horton" wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The subject oriented mandates are the ones I think work best.
>>
>>
>>
>> Speaking only for myself, this is all I was trying to say earlier.
>> I'm not
>> quite sure where all of the overt hostility between everyone else is
>> coming
>> from...
>
>
> Hostility?
>
>>
>> IMHO the SI does not need to be structurally changed. The period is
>> fine.
>> The mandator mechanism works well. Judging indirectly by page hits (and
>> posts like Duncan Chesley's), viewing interest still seems high. And it
>> does *not* need to become a competitive exercise. (If it ever does, I'll
>> simply wish everyone the best and quietly fade away.)
>
>
> The main issue at hand is the recent mandates that are not getting
> anyone juiced up.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
>
It doesn't help when the mandate is oriented towards archived shots neither.
I understand that "Parents" was a special case. However, "best worst
shot" is not just something you can go and shot.
Owamanga
<alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>Ken Nadvornick wrote:
>
>> Speaking only for myself, this is all I was trying to say earlier. I'm not
>> quite sure where all of the overt hostility between everyone else is coming
>> from...
>
>Hostility?
I think the fact Al and Roxy are throwing turds at each other counts
as hostile. But I guess you KF'd them both?
<g>
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Alan Browne
> I understand that "Parents" was a special case. However, "best worst
> shot" is not just something you can go and shot.
For BoW, I'm going to shoot whatever the hell I like.
Cheers,
Alan.
Owamanga
<Lisa...@lisahorton.net> wrote:
>I would suggest that coming up with a really good mandate isn't actually
>easy.
I totally agree with you. I've been trying to think of one for two
days now. I'll try drinking some JD tonight, maybe that'll allow for a
different type of brain activity.
I was hoping you'd join this thread, the SI was your invention wasn't
it?
>An approach to mandates that I think works well is for the mandator to
>imagine they are, say, a magazine editor giving an assignment to a
>photographer. Like "we're doing a story on time/water/beauty, but we're
>not quite sure of the specific direction. So go shoot a bunch of photos
>on that subject" Or something like that.
Not a bad idea, I'll cut up bits of newspaper when I'm drinking my
Jack & Coke pretending to be an editor and see if that helps.
<g>
Still, it'll be hard getting the mandate "Olson Twins doing something
that would have been illegal last year, soft focus strictly not
allowed." out of my head...
>And finally, I would see nothing wrong with a mandator, faced with a
>dearth of ideas, soliciting suggestions for their mandate. Lots of
>people here, with lots of ideas.
Hmm.. part of the interest is in not knowing what the next mandate is,
isn't it? Otherwise we could get people to divulge the mandate months
ahead of time and beat down the lousy ones in a public forum such as
this, so they never see the light of day.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Lisa Horton
Owamanga wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 May 2005 12:01:20 -0700, Lisa Horton
> <Lisa...@lisahorton.net> wrote:
>
> >I would suggest that coming up with a really good mandate isn't actually
> >easy.
>
> I totally agree with you. I've been trying to think of one for two
> days now. I'll try drinking some JD tonight, maybe that'll allow for a
> different type of brain activity.
>
> I was hoping you'd join this thread, the SI was your invention wasn't
> it?
I was involved, but it was very much a group effort.
>
> >An approach to mandates that I think works well is for the mandator to
> >imagine they are, say, a magazine editor giving an assignment to a
> >photographer. Like "we're doing a story on time/water/beauty, but we're
> >not quite sure of the specific direction. So go shoot a bunch of photos
> >on that subject" Or something like that.
>
> Not a bad idea, I'll cut up bits of newspaper when I'm drinking my
> Jack & Coke pretending to be an editor and see if that helps.
>
Just don't let any pets into the cut up newspaper.
> <g>
You won't be doing that if you let the pets into the cut up newspaper :)
>
> Still, it'll be hard getting the mandate "Olson Twins doing something
> that would have been illegal last year, soft focus strictly not
> allowed." out of my head...
Illicit desires might be an equivalent mandate :)
>
> >And finally, I would see nothing wrong with a mandator, faced with a
> >dearth of ideas, soliciting suggestions for their mandate. Lots of
> >people here, with lots of ideas.
>
> Hmm.. part of the interest is in not knowing what the next mandate is,
> isn't it? Otherwise we could get people to divulge the mandate months
> ahead of time and beat down the lousy ones in a public forum such as
> this, so they never see the light of day.
>
Indeed, advance knowledge of the mandate wouldn't be in the spirit of
things. But the audience at large would have no idea which, if indeed
any, of the suggestions the mandator might choose. Not to mention that
one or more of the suggestions might help the mandator think of
something new but entirely unrelated.
Lisa
Ken Nadvornick
> Hostility?
"The reply of a complete retard."
That'll lose you one or both of your front teeth in any bar or brothel I've
ever been in... <g>
Ken
Roxy d'Urban
> Dallas, I think that you're missing an important point. Changing the
> shootin to a competition fundamentally alters what it is. It wouldn't be
> a shootin any more. There's nothing wrong with competitions, they have
> their good points, but they are a completely different animal than the
> shootin.
Point taken, but I will also say that this animal (SI) is long dead.
> Likewise, trying to commercialize it is incongruous with the community
> based, home grown nature of the shootin.
It would only be commercialised if there was a need for a prize, but
perhaps winning bragging rights would be a much better idea.
> Notwithstanding the above, it's also true that the shootin, as a community
> based and driven project, by it's nature should tend to be an organic type
> of thing, very possibly changing over time. A good example of this is the
> way the scheduling of the mandates was changed, by popular demand.
>
> Lisa
I think a lot of people would like the SI (or maybe a different animal) to
have a bit of a competitive edge to it. We have enough good photographers
posting here who would keep the standard of work at a good level.
Maybe it's just me, but looking at some of the garbage certain people have
been sending into the SI in recent months leaves me a little bilious.
I would prefer to see a bristling monthly Shoot-out with meaningful
imagery and reality based participation than a lame fortnightly shoot-in.
Because let's just admit it, the SI has become extremely lame.
Roxy d'Urban
> Not a bad idea, I'll cut up bits of newspaper when I'm drinking my Jack &
> Coke pretending to be an editor and see if that helps.
You put JD and Coke together??? That's gotta be against a law somewhere...
JD, ice and soda water, just like Uncle Jack intended.
(but personally I prefer J&B these days)
Roxy d'Urban
Hey! Bundy and I have a special bond. Don't go killfiling us! You'll miss
the knock-out blows!
Roxy d'Urban
> Paul Bielec wrote:
>
>> I understand that "Parents" was a special case. However, "best worst
>> shot" is not just something you can go and shot.
>
> For BoW, I'm going to shoot whatever the hell I like.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
Um, you always do that...
Ryadia@Home
Don't take it to heart so much Alan, you can change, just try a little
harder.
--
Douglas...
It's traditional, painter's use it, Rembrandt used it.
Now you can put your photos on it too!
http://www.canvasphotos.com.au
Duncan Chesley
>It doesn't help when the mandate is oriented towards archived shots neither.
>I understand that "Parents" was a special case. However, "best worst
>shot" is not just something you can go and shot.
I interpreted this mandate to be a different slant on the rule
breaking mandate - a challenge to understand the limitations of the
gear and/or the photographer, and to overcome those to still make a
good photograph. Just how do you make an interesting shot with your
finger in front of the lens?
But archiving my bad shots would put a severe strain on my
resources,,,
Cheers,
Duncan C.
The Lurker
Duncan Chesley
>
>looking at some of the garbage certain people have
>been sending into the SI in recent months leaves me a little bilious.
I haven't seen garbage in SI. At least not in the photos.
Garbage.... Now there's a subject-oriented mandate. :-)
Cheers,
Duncan C.
The Lurker, hoping my lack of participation in SI (so far) doesn't
preclude contributing to the discussion.
Owamanga
>On Thu, 26 May 2005 21:35:02 +0000, Owamanga wrote:
>
>> Not a bad idea, I'll cut up bits of newspaper when I'm drinking my Jack &
>> Coke pretending to be an editor and see if that helps.
>
>You put JD and Coke together??? That's gotta be against a law somewhere...
Actually, Diet Coke. Not that I'm worried about the calories, it just
tastes a hell of a lot better.
Jack & Fully leaded Coke tastes like mud.
>JD, ice and soda water, just like Uncle Jack intended.
If I'm too lazy to pour the coke, still water is a quick alternative.
..or just Jack on the rocks, it soon converts the ice into water..
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Lisa Horton
Roxy d'Urban wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 May 2005 12:07:10 -0700, Lisa Horton wrote:
>
> > Dallas, I think that you're missing an important point. Changing the
> > shootin to a competition fundamentally alters what it is. It wouldn't be
> > a shootin any more. There's nothing wrong with competitions, they have
> > their good points, but they are a completely different animal than the
> > shootin.
>
> Point taken, but I will also say that this animal (SI) is long dead.
I wouldn't agree with that assessment.
>
> > Likewise, trying to commercialize it is incongruous with the community
> > based, home grown nature of the shootin.
>
> It would only be commercialised if there was a need for a prize, but
> perhaps winning bragging rights would be a much better idea.
>
> > Notwithstanding the above, it's also true that the shootin, as a community
> > based and driven project, by it's nature should tend to be an organic type
> > of thing, very possibly changing over time. A good example of this is the
> > way the scheduling of the mandates was changed, by popular demand.
> >
> > Lisa
>
> I think a lot of people would like the SI (or maybe a different animal) to
> have a bit of a competitive edge to it. We have enough good photographers
> posting here who would keep the standard of work at a good level.
If you'd like to start an alternate activity with a more competitive
focus, I encourage you to do so. Sufficient demand or desire is one of
the three essential components to making this sort of project fly.
Photographer Bill Jones had something like this in a web based form for
quite a while. It was pretty successful, and even I enjoyed competing.
Competitions can be fun and can be inspiring. But the shootin cannot be
a competition and remain the shootin.
>
> Maybe it's just me, but looking at some of the garbage certain people have
> been sending into the SI in recent months leaves me a little bilious.
One of the GOOD things about the SI is that it's open to all skill
levels, and all skill levels are welcome. I think that there is value
to the photographer and to the viewers in all the photos, good and bad.
Part of the fun is the learning experience.
>
> I would prefer to see a bristling monthly Shoot-out with meaningful
> imagery and reality based participation than a lame fortnightly shoot-in.
Then do it. Talk is cheap. If you really believe in this idea, then
move it forward. Criticizing the SI because it isn't something else
that you might like isn't sensible, or productive. The SI is what it
is. If you want something different, make it happen.
In a way, I see this as a positive/negative thing. To say that the SI
isn't good because it's not something else entirely is just negative,
and cannot produce any positive results. Instead, why not be positive,
put out an idea, create something new, produce positive and productive
change.
>
> Because let's just admit it, the SI has become extremely lame.
>
My perception is that this is a minority view. It is not my view.
Lisa
Bandicoot
news:Oa1le.73411$3R6.2...@weber.videotron.net...
> Owamanga wrote:
>
> > Alan, you make some good points. I've heard the
> > following suggestion before and I think its a good one:
> > We should have run two SI's simultaneously, maintaining
> > the current 2 week submission deadline.
>
> see this working. MO.
>
> > Bringing in your complaints; SI-1 should retain it's current > > format
of basically anything goes including technical and
> > emotional (arty) mandates, SI-2 should be restricted to
> > simpler subject oriented challenges (which would
> > probably appeal to more people because a less
> > restrictive mandate is easier to meet).
>
positive and specific as opposed to 'lost wax' (breaking
> the rules) and disaster recovery (best of the worst).
I don't get your reference to 'lost wax' - other than as a method of bronze
casting! Could you explain?
I'm actually surprised you didn't like the rule breaking mandate, since you
have taken and shown work in the past that would have fitted well. I wanted
to bring out the point that while 'rules' (I prefer 'guidelines', as you
might have guessed) can be useful as starting points or as ways of helping
beginners to see (I was thinking especially of composition, as my
explanation of the mandate should have made clear), they are not hard and
fast. Many great pictures succeed without reference to any of the obvious
'rules', or while - maybe because of - breaking many of them. I have seen
compositions from you that have done so, and that I've liked.
>
> > What do you think? Can you twist Al's arm?
>
> Al's arms are easilly twisted but he's otherwise a stubborn
> old coot.
>
> I would simply implore mandators to consider mandates
> that will lead people to do things that lead to better
> photography, more appealing photography and more
> creative photography.
I would have thought mine did - certainly the submissions it garnered would
suggest so. Learning to (and being encouraged to) transcend the rules is a
very important part of the process of becoming a better photographer.
> The recent rash of coffin-corner assignments might have a
> perverse sense of challenge, but it's frankly no fun. We're
> not getting the number of participants we used to have
> either ... in part because (I believe) the mandates are
> getting too narrow for most people to jump into.
I don't know that that is the reason: parents didn't get a massive turn out
either. I think we are settling at the point when the initial rush of
"I-must-submit-every-week" enthusiasm has died down. I'd certainly like to
see more submissions, but we've already outlasted other shoot out/up/down
activities on the web. And we're still attracting newcomers, which I think
is a healthy sign.
[SNIP]
>
> It's spring (sort of) here in the northern hemisphere. I want > mandates
that will get me and others out hunting for new
> material.
There are two flower shots in the breaking the rules gallery, and a good
fungi one too. Should I have set a mandate of 'flower shots with the
subject not on the intersection of thirds and/or with dark backgrounds'?
Would that have been better? Nah, of course it wouldn't...
;-)
Peter
Bandicoot
news:pan.2005.05.26....@home.com...
> On Wed, 25 May 2005 19:41:16 +0100, Bandicoot wrote:
>
> > No offence Dallas, but the latest gallery doesn't contain a
> > single image that isn't better than every image you ever
> > submitted to any of the SI rounds (my own excepted.) If
> > that doesn't inspire you, you're beyond hope!
>
> None taken, but it's possibly because I am confused by
> what you said. Are you saying that all the current images are > better
than anything I submitted? The only image I see on
> that gallery that looks remotely interesting is Alan Browne's
> (but I fail to see how it breaks any "rules").
That is exactly what I mean - and if the only image you find on that gallery
that interests you is the one that is the most purely representational of
the lot, I think you're kind of missing much of the point of photography...
The best photographs are not simply photocopies of reality - if they were,
all they'd ever be would be a poor alternative to travel. Rather, they
should be able to show us how other people see the world, to encompass a
'feeling' as well as just a sense of 'this is what it looked like'. If a
picture I take says nothing to a viewer other than what they would have got
from standing beside me and looking at the same scene, then I've added
nothing of myself to it, and so in a sense I've failed as a photographer -
certainly to produce such work would be to fail as an artist.
I guess you don't like the impressionists much either...
;-)
Peter
Owamanga
<Lisa...@lisahorton.net> wrote:
>Roxy d'Urban wrote:
>
>> I will also say that this animal (SI) is long dead.
>
>I wouldn't agree with that assessment.
>
>> Because let's just admit it, the SI has become extremely lame.
>
>My perception is that this is a minority view. It is not my view.
In the general theme of supporting the SI Lisa, will you be
participating more frequently in the future?
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Owamanga
<"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote:
>"Roxy d'Urban" <n...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Are you saying that all the current images are better
>> than anything I submitted? The only image I see on
>> that gallery that looks remotely interesting is Alan Browne's
>> (but I fail to see how it breaks any "rules").
>
>That is exactly what I mean - and if the only image you find on that gallery
>that interests you is the one that is the most purely representational of
>the lot, I think you're kind of missing much of the point of photography...
>
>The best photographs are not simply photocopies of reality - if they were,
>all they'd ever be would be a poor alternative to travel. Rather, they
>should be able to show us how other people see the world, to encompass a
>'feeling' as well as just a sense of 'this is what it looked like'. If a
>picture I take says nothing to a viewer other than what they would have got
>from standing beside me and looking at the same scene, then I've added
>nothing of myself to it, and so in a sense I've failed as a photographer -
>certainly to produce such work would be to fail as an artist.
>
>I guess you don't like the impressionists much either...
>
>;-)
Excellent points 'coot.
Alan has already explained his disdain for that particular mandate,
which to some degree explains his choice of shot. I'm tempted this
round to do what he is threatening and just submit any photo of
choice. Trawling through past images looking for accidents isn't my
idea of fun.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>I don't mind that the mandates be technical, but they should > be
>
> positive and specific as opposed to 'lost wax' (breaking
>
>>the rules) and disaster recovery (best of the worst).
>
>
> I don't get your reference to 'lost wax' - other than as a method of bronze
> casting! Could you explain?
I mean that the recent SI "Best of Worst" and the "Breaking the rules"
are not forward looking, positive exercises/mandates. They're more like
homework assignments from a photographer instructor who failed to get
laid with his newlywed wife for three months.
> I'm actually surprised you didn't like the rule breaking mandate, since you
> have taken and shown work in the past that would have fitted well. I wanted
> to bring out the point that while 'rules' (I prefer 'guidelines', as you
> might have guessed) can be useful as starting points or as ways of helping
Me too. Nothing wrong with them. Just have an eye to do something
different where it might work.
(I hope you weren't barbing me above ;-) )
However, "breaking the rules" should be implicit in all madates. You
can follow them if you like, but certainly break them where it appeals
to you and helps build a better photo.
For that matter, there have been many 'rule breakers' in the whole SI
that have made good to great phots.
> beginners to see (I was thinking especially of composition, as my
> explanation of the mandate should have made clear), they are not hard and
> fast. Many great pictures succeed without reference to any of the obvious
> 'rules', or while - maybe because of - breaking many of them. I have seen
> compositions from you that have done so, and that I've liked.
Unintentionally in most cases! Even a photo that intentionally breaks a
few rules will probably be in compliance with a few others.
AND VICE VERSA!
So the notion of purposely breaking a rule just doesn't make much sense.
For my photo, if it wasn't obvious to anyone, I didn't purposely break
any rule at all. Out of a bunch of handheld (with anti-shake),
near-macro shots, in slightly windy conditions it was the nicest out of
a dozen or so. Period.
>>I would simply implore mandators to consider mandates
>>that will lead people to do things that lead to better
>>photography, more appealing photography and more
>>creative photography.
>
>
> I would have thought mine did - certainly the submissions it garnered would
> suggest so. Learning to (and being encouraged to) transcend the rules is a
> very important part of the process of becoming a better photographer.
>
> > The recent rash of coffin-corner assignments might have a
>
>>perverse sense of challenge, but it's frankly no fun. We're
>>not getting the number of participants we used to have
>>either ... in part because (I believe) the mandates are
>>getting too narrow for most people to jump into.
>
>
> I don't know that that is the reason: parents didn't get a massive turn out
> either. I think we are settling at the point when the initial rush of
> "I-must-submit-every-week" enthusiasm has died down. I'd certainly like to
> see more submissions, but we've already outlasted other shoot out/up/down
> activities on the web. And we're still attracting newcomers, which I think
> is a healthy sign.
Not enough. The last two mandates were so uninspiring (IMO) that I
didn't do my usual bible thumping in other NG's...
>>It's spring (sort of) here in the northern hemisphere. I want > mandates
>
> that will get me and others out hunting for new
>
>>material.
>
>
> There are two flower shots in the breaking the rules gallery, and a good
> fungi one too. Should I have set a mandate of 'flower shots with the
> subject not on the intersection of thirds and/or with dark backgrounds'?
> Would that have been better? Nah, of course it wouldn't...
As I said I didn't go to any length to break or not break rules, I saw,
I shot, I submitted. Er, conquered!
Owamanga
<"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote:
> Learning to (and being encouraged to) transcend the rules is a
>very important part of the process of becoming a better photographer.
Indeed, and even to complete newbies who don't know the rules, it
serves as exposure to what those rules are. Learning them is
important, as is breaking them on a regular bases when the situation
warrants it.
I've said before, I enjoyed that mandate and think it has value, but I
can see why others didn't.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Lisa Horton
I would have to say that my answer is a definite maybe :)
I'm hoping for inspiring mandates that will inspire me to get out and
shoot again :)
Lisa
Bandicoot
news:42975F62...@lisahorton.net...
[SNIP]
> >
> > In the general theme of supporting the SI Lisa, will you be
> > participating more frequently in the future?
> >
>
> I would have to say that my answer is a definite maybe :)
>
> I'm hoping for inspiring mandates that will inspire me to get out and
> shoot again :)
>
> Lisa
Snow?
Peter
Owamanga
...I do hope not, here in South Florida the only snow you get is in
the South Beach night clubs....
...or jammed in between the keys of my keyboard...
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Annika1980
>> I was hoping you'd join this thread, the SI was your invention wasn't it?
>I was involved, but it was very much a group effort.
Don't be modest, the SI was your baby.
So YOU get the blame!
Annika1980
>or outdoor portraits, I'm sure this would attract many more entries than
>the miserable number it get since that highly acclaimed and well
>ridiculed Photographer: Bret Douglas handed over control of the thing.
Believe me, Al has done a lot more work on the Shoot-In than I ever
did.
My forte is promotion.
Paul Furman
>
> I'm hoping for inspiring mandates that will inspire me to get out and
> shoot again :)
'Garbage' would be an interesting one as (jokingly?) mentioned above.
One person's trash is another's treasure. Make something ugly look good
or just interesting or expose something normally considered a treasure
as trash. Too conceptual, abstract and edgy?
--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Owamanga
wrote:
*Self* promotion by any chance?
You are far too shy...
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Owamanga
wrote:
>Lisa Horton wrote:
>>
>> I'm hoping for inspiring mandates that will inspire me to get out and
>> shoot again :)
>
>
>'Garbage' would be an interesting one as (jokingly?) mentioned above.
>
>One person's trash is another's treasure. Make something ugly look good
>or just interesting or expose something normally considered a treasure
>as trash. Too conceptual, abstract and edgy?
I like it.
--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Lisa Horton
Ah, a little late for that this year :)
Lisa
Lisa Horton
Paul Furman wrote:
>
> Lisa Horton wrote:
> >
> > I'm hoping for inspiring mandates that will inspire me to get out and
> > shoot again :)
>
> 'Garbage' would be an interesting one as (jokingly?) mentioned above.
>
> One person's trash is another's treasure. Make something ugly look good
> or just interesting or expose something normally considered a treasure
> as trash. Too conceptual, abstract and edgy?
>
There was a good bad & ugly mandate, for which I considered
photographing a phenomenally ugly office complex blighting an area near
my neighborhood. I looked at it, I thought about it, but I just
couldn't get into the idea of intentionally portraying ugly.
OTOH, I have more than a few photos that are attractive and sometimes
even beautiful renditions of things commonly thought ugly. I enjoy
finding beauty in the mundane.
I think you could come up with a good mandate :)
Lisa
Lisa Horton
I may have been an instigator, but it wouldn't have happened without the
efforts of several people. One in particular, who donated and launched
the very Pbase gallery that's still used today. Another troublemaker,
if you ask me :)
Lisa
Colin D
Duncan Chesley wrote:
>
>
> With regard to the Breaking the Rules mandate, I found the results
> instructive. I like looking at (and taking) pictures that break the
> rules. To view this collection of rule-breaking pictures was a treat
> for me. It feels to me that, if everyone followed all the rules,
> photography might be pretty but boring.
>
> I believe that one of the Prime Directives for an Educator, after
> teaching the rules and goals behind them, is to teach how to
> accomplish the goals without the rules.
>
I am a little uncomfortable with the frequent mention of 'rules' in
regard to photographs (as distinct from the Shoot-in rulz) in this
obviously popular thread.
My take on this is that there no 'rules' in photography, but there are
'guidelines', mainly intended to assist persons who may not know where
to start improving their shots. But once the idea has been grasped, and
modified by the photog's own ideas and instinct, the 'guideline' fades
out, and experience takes over. David McNally's book "Even Eagles Need
A Push" comes to mind. Once the bird is flying, it doesn't need any
more pushes.
Composition ideally should become instinctive once the principles behind
guidelines are understood. Sure, having key points in the image at or
near 'thirds', e.g. horizons, is probably ok - but not always. Having
an uneven number of points of interest (people, say) may look better -
but not always.
This is not to criticize the mandate, more to perhaps dispel the idea of
fixed rules that may mislead beginners in the craft.
Colin
Bandicoot
> Al Denelsbeck wrote:
>
> > I am a little hesitant to jump on the bandwagon and say
> > that the mandates themselves are at fault for not being
> > inspiring enough. Remember that any photographer that
> > makes a living from it has to take the subject matter and
> > *make* it inspiring - there's more skill is taking a
> > mundane subject and producing art than in simply finding > > an artsy
subject. The idea
>
> How many photographers get the assignment: "Take your
> bad photos and make the best of it"? "Your assignement is
> to break photographic rules. When are you picking up your
> cheque?"
The latter (though not the former, obviously) really is almost a given in
many areas of editorial work now, in the attempt to get away from every
magazine image looking the same. This is especially true of fashion, of
course - not that a lot of modern fashion photography is all that great.
It's becoming more true in other areas too, advertising still life is one,
and the flower work I do is another.
Peter
Bandicoot
[SNIP]
>
> The main issue at hand is the recent mandates that are not
> getting anyone juiced up.
>
Not getting you, Dallas, and maybe Ryadia fired up, you mean. That's not
the same as getting no one fired up. And some of the people who've
participated in recent mandates probably didn't in some of the ones that you
liked.
As I said in this thread and in another some time ago, we should have a good
variety of mandates: nothing is going to please all the people all the time
(and it would probably be anodyne if it did). So live with a couple that
didn't appeal to a literal mind, and wait for a few that do, which may not
appeal to some others who like to dream or to be challenged.
Variety is, after all, the spice of SI!
Peter
Bandicoot
news:pufc91putd41cg9te...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 May 2005 16:39:24 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >Ken Nadvornick wrote:
> >
> >> Speaking only for myself, this is all I was trying to say
> >> earlier. I'm not quite sure where all of the overt hostility
> >> between everyone else is coming from...
> >
> >Hostility?
>
> I think the fact Al and Roxy are throwing turds at each other > counts as
hostile. But I guess you KF'd them both?
>
And knowing where each lives, they must have killer throwing arms. D'you
play cricket by any chance, Dallas?
;-)
Peter
Bandicoot
>
>
> Owamanga wrote:
> >
[SNIP]
> >
> > Still, it'll be hard getting the mandate "Olson Twins doing
> > something that would have been illegal last year, soft
> > focus strictly not allowed." out of my head...
>
> Illicit desires might be an equivalent mandate :)
>
Yeah, but just think what Anni would do with that one.
;-)
Peter
Bandicoot
news:pan.2005.05.27....@home.com...
> On Thu, 26 May 2005 21:35:02 +0000, Owamanga wrote:
>
> > Not a bad idea, I'll cut up bits of newspaper when I'm
> > drinking my Jack & Coke pretending to be an editor and
> > see if that helps.
>
> You put JD and Coke together??? That's gotta be against a
> law somewhere...
>
>
>
Ahh, that takes me back - 1.5 litres of J&B, some good friends, Iraq 1984.
JD has more recent memories - a party, a night club, another night club,
then it all gets a bit blurry....
(Oh, and the girl in an office I once worked in who gave me a bottle of JD
one Christmas to keep in my desk drawer. I wonder what happened to her?)
Peter
Roxy d'Urban
> Snow?
What is that?
--
"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal labotomy."
~ (Frank Zappa?)
Roxy d'Urban
> That is exactly what I mean - and if the only image you find on that
> gallery that interests you is the one that is the most purely
> representational of the lot, I think you're kind of missing much of the
> point of photography...
I guess we can agree to disagree.
> The best photographs are not simply photocopies of reality - if they were,
> all they'd ever be would be a poor alternative to travel. Rather, they
> should be able to show us how other people see the world, to encompass a
> 'feeling' as well as just a sense of 'this is what it looked like'. If a
> picture I take says nothing to a viewer other than what they would have
> got from standing beside me and looking at the same scene, then I've added
> nothing of myself to it, and so in a sense I've failed as a photographer -
> certainly to produce such work would be to fail as an artist.
>
> I guess you don't like the impressionists much either...
Correct.
Colin D
Roxy d'Urban wrote:
>
>> "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal labotomy."
>
> ~ (Frank Zappa?)
Hey Roxy, it's 'lobotomy' - as you're using it a lot.
Colin
Roxy d'Urban
Lemme guess: you are some kind of English teacher (or worse)?
I'll spel however I frikking well feel like speling.
--
jimkramer
news:pegg91pkfe0pjk573...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 28 May 2005 07:28:20 +0200, Roxy d'Urban <n...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>>--
>>"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal labotomy."
>>~ (Frank Zappa?)
>
> Zappa.
>
> RPŠ
> -
> The large print givith, the small print taketh away.
>
> -Tom Waits-
>
http://www.keeslau.com/TomWaitsSupplement/Interviews/77-aug1-fernwood2night-tws.htm
At least in 1977....
Paul Furman
That_Rich wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2005 07:28:20 +0200, Roxy d'Urban <n...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>--
>>"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal labotomy."
>>~ (Frank Zappa?)
>
>
> I have always seen that quote credited to the great Tom Waits. Never
> Zappa.
>
> RPŠ
> -
> The large print givith, the small print taketh away.
>
> -Tom Waits-
>
--