Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Re: [SI] Call for mandates (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t713239-re-si-call-for-mandates.html)

Calvin Sambrook 01-29-2010 01:10 PM

Re: [SI] Call for mandates
 
"Bowser" <Canon@Nikon.Panny> wrote in message
news:iqmbl5hlmnbmvjvrns2t7hupjooc19m32t@4ax.com...
>I have one idea: Facescape-find a face with a lot of character and
> shoot it in excrutiating detail, up cose. No points for beauty, lots
> of points for character.
>
> Any other ideas?


Bowser, have you decided on the mandate yet? My replacement camera's turned
up and I want something to shoot at.


Bruce 01-29-2010 01:29 PM

Re: [SI] Call for mandates
 
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:10:19 -0000, "Calvin Sambrook"
<csambrook@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>"Bowser" <Canon@Nikon.Panny> wrote in message
>news:iqmbl5hlmnbmvjvrns2t7hupjooc19m32t@4ax.com.. .
>>I have one idea: Facescape-find a face with a lot of character and
>> shoot it in excrutiating detail, up cose. No points for beauty, lots
>> of points for character.
>>
>> Any other ideas?

>
>Bowser, have you decided on the mandate yet? My replacement camera's turned
>up and I want something to shoot at.



Just shoot anything you want. Don't worry about the mandate, because
the person running the SI clearly doesn't.

The last SI had several entries that quite clearly did not comply with
the mandate, but they were still allowed.


sheesh 01-29-2010 02:17 PM

Re: [SI] Call for mandates
 
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:10:19 -0000, "Calvin Sambrook"
<csambrook@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>"Bowser" <Canon@Nikon.Panny> wrote in message
>news:iqmbl5hlmnbmvjvrns2t7hupjooc19m32t@4ax.com.. .
>>I have one idea: Facescape-find a face with a lot of character and
>> shoot it in excrutiating detail, up cose. No points for beauty, lots
>> of points for character.
>>
>> Any other ideas?

>
>Bowser, have you decided on the mandate yet? My replacement camera's turned
>up and I want something to shoot at.


You need someone else to give you ideas for a reason to use a camera?

Return your replacement and any other cameras you might have. Put them in
the hands of someone who can make use of them. You know, people who can
think for themselves.


Robert Coe 01-29-2010 02:23 PM

Re: [SI] Call for mandates
 
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:29:03 +0000, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
: On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:10:19 -0000, "Calvin Sambrook"
: <csambrook@bigfoot.com> wrote:
:
: >"Bowser" <Canon@Nikon.Panny> wrote in message
: >news:iqmbl5hlmnbmvjvrns2t7hupjooc19m32t@4ax.com.. .
: >>I have one idea: Facescape-find a face with a lot of character and
: >> shoot it in excrutiating detail, up cose. No points for beauty, lots
: >> of points for character.
: >>
: >> Any other ideas?
: >
: >Bowser, have you decided on the mandate yet? My replacement camera's turned
: >up and I want something to shoot at.
:
:
: Just shoot anything you want. Don't worry about the mandate, because
: the person running the SI clearly doesn't.
:
: The last SI had several entries that quite clearly did not comply with
: the mandate, but they were still allowed.

And you would know that how? None of us believes that you actually looked at
the SI pictures or that you would know what to look for if you did.

Bob

Bruce 01-29-2010 03:13 PM

Re: [SI] Call for mandates
 
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:23:05 -0500, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:29:03 +0000, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>: Just shoot anything you want. Don't worry about the mandate, because
>: the person running the SI clearly doesn't.
>:
>: The last SI had several entries that quite clearly did not comply with
>: the mandate, but they were still allowed.
>
>And you would know that how? None of us believes



Please don't waste your time thinking that I care what you believe.

The last mandate was as easy as could be. A very simple requirement
for a focal length that gave the same angle of view as a 50mm lens on
a 35mm film camera, or a full frame DSLR.

Yet several people who submitted images either did not understand that
very simple requirement, or simply didn't care.

The SI submissions represent the very worst of photography by people
who don't even understand the basics. As a result, they are extremely
funny. ;-)


Tim Conway 01-29-2010 03:42 PM

Re: [SI] Call for mandates
 

"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fdu5m51cc5jothif6eatra8vdlu6lpnril@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:23:05 -0500, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:
>>On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:29:03 +0000, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>: Just shoot anything you want. Don't worry about the mandate, because
>>: the person running the SI clearly doesn't.
>>:
>>: The last SI had several entries that quite clearly did not comply with
>>: the mandate, but they were still allowed.
>>
>>And you would know that how? None of us believes

>
>
> Please don't waste your time thinking that I care what you believe.
>
> The last mandate was as easy as could be. A very simple requirement
> for a focal length that gave the same angle of view as a 50mm lens on
> a 35mm film camera, or a full frame DSLR.
>
> Yet several people who submitted images either did not understand that
> very simple requirement, or simply didn't care.
>
> The SI submissions represent the very worst of photography by people
> who don't even understand the basics. As a result, they are extremely
> funny. ;-)


Your constant belittling is representing the worst of usenet.


Bruce 01-29-2010 04:02 PM

Re: [SI] Call for mandates
 
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:42:05 -0500, "Tim Conway"
<tconway_113@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:fdu5m51cc5jothif6eatra8vdlu6lpnril@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:23:05 -0500, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:29:03 +0000, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>: Just shoot anything you want. Don't worry about the mandate, because
>>>: the person running the SI clearly doesn't.
>>>:
>>>: The last SI had several entries that quite clearly did not comply with
>>>: the mandate, but they were still allowed.
>>>
>>>And you would know that how? None of us believes

>>
>>
>> Please don't waste your time thinking that I care what you believe.
>>
>> The last mandate was as easy as could be. A very simple requirement
>> for a focal length that gave the same angle of view as a 50mm lens on
>> a 35mm film camera, or a full frame DSLR.
>>
>> Yet several people who submitted images either did not understand that
>> very simple requirement, or simply didn't care.
>>
>> The SI submissions represent the very worst of photography by people
>> who don't even understand the basics. As a result, they are extremely
>> funny. ;-)

>
>Your constant belittling is representing the worst of usenet.



Don't be silly, there is far worse to be found.

I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
actually a gross insult to capable photographers.


John McWilliams 01-29-2010 04:40 PM

Re: [SI] Call for mandates
 
Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:42:05 -0500, "Tim Conway"


>> Your constant belittling is representing the worst of usenet.

>
>
> Don't be silly, there is far worse to be found.
>
> I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
> actually a gross insult to capable photographers.


Then you can start changing that by:

A. Posting your own superior images;
B. Providing solid (not merely insulting) feedback/critique of other's
pathetic photos .

As if.

--
lsmft

Tim Conway 01-29-2010 04:45 PM

Re: [SI] Call for mandates
 

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hjv31s$1jk$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Bruce wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:42:05 -0500, "Tim Conway"

>
>>> Your constant belittling is representing the worst of usenet.

>>
>>
>> Don't be silly, there is far worse to be found. I'm really being very
>> gentle here, because the execrable SI is
>> actually a gross insult to capable photographers.

>
> Then you can start changing that by:
>
> A. Posting your own superior images;
> B. Providing solid (not merely insulting) feedback/critique of other's
> pathetic photos .
>
> As if.


Hey, are you callin' my photos pathetic?
....just joking, some of them are. <grin>



tony cooper 01-29-2010 07:52 PM

Re: [SI] Call for mandates
 
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:42:05 -0500, "Tim Conway"
><tconway_113@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:fdu5m51cc5jothif6eatra8vdlu6lpnril@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:23:05 -0500, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:29:03 +0000, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>: Just shoot anything you want. Don't worry about the mandate, because
>>>>: the person running the SI clearly doesn't.
>>>>:
>>>>: The last SI had several entries that quite clearly did not comply with
>>>>: the mandate, but they were still allowed.
>>>>
>>>>And you would know that how? None of us believes
>>>
>>>
>>> Please don't waste your time thinking that I care what you believe.
>>>
>>> The last mandate was as easy as could be. A very simple requirement
>>> for a focal length that gave the same angle of view as a 50mm lens on
>>> a 35mm film camera, or a full frame DSLR.
>>>
>>> Yet several people who submitted images either did not understand that
>>> very simple requirement, or simply didn't care.
>>>
>>> The SI submissions represent the very worst of photography by people
>>> who don't even understand the basics. As a result, they are extremely
>>> funny. ;-)

>>
>>Your constant belittling is representing the worst of usenet.

>
>
>Don't be silly, there is far worse to be found.
>
>I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
>actually a gross insult to capable photographers.


Your opinion would carry more weight if we knew - from seeing your
work - that you are one of the capable photographers.

I don't think you necessarily need to be a capable photographer to
effectively critique photographs. You don't need to be artist to
judge that a painting is badly done. You don't need to be a published
author to know that a story is badly written. You don't need to be a
good photographer to see that a specific photo is badly composed.

However, when you make only broad-brush statements that all of the SI
stuff is excrement, you really have to establish your own credentials
to be taken seriously.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.