Re: Macro/Closeup
 

On May 29, 8:21*pm, SI Committee <si.modera...@squigglethis-yahoo.com>
wrote:
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>
> --
> The Committee

I don't get it. Some of the shots are not close-ups in any form and
some of the close-ups and pseudo-macros have no composition that is
discernible.

Re: Macro/Closeup
 

RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 29, 8:21*pm, SI Committee <si.modera...@squigglethis-yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>>
>> --
>> The Committee
>
>I don't get it. Some of the shots are not close-ups in any form and
>some of the close-ups and pseudo-macros have no composition that is
>discernible.


'Twas ever thus. ;-)

Re: Macro/Closeup
 

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2012-05-30 14:17:51 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> said:
>> RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 29, 8:21*pm, SI Committee <si.modera...@squigglethis-yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> The Committee
>>>
>>> I don't get it. Some of the shots are not close-ups in any form and
>>> some of the close-ups and pseudo-macros have no composition that is
>>> discernible.
>>
>>
>> 'Twas ever thus. ;-)
>
>Why take Rich's word for the work submitted?


Because I have seen the submissions and I agree entirely with Rich's
comments. Once again the SI plumbs the depths of mediocrity and
incompetence. But y'all seem to enjoy it, and it never gets any
better no matter what is said, so who cares? ;-)

Re: Macro/Closeup
 

On 2012-05-30 18:36 , Bruce wrote:
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>> Why take Rich's word for the work submitted?
>
>
> Because I have seen the submissions and I agree entirely with Rich's
> comments.

Here's a Tony "Bruce" Polson professional product shot:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/all6e7aqk8zs8vt/TP%20TEAC.jpg

Then there are the choo-choo shots...

So, really, you don't have much to contribute... as usual.

Re: Macro/Closeup
 

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2012-05-30 15:36:12 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> said:
>
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-30 14:17:51 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> said:
>>>> RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On May 29, 8:21*pm, SI Committee <si.modera...@squigglethis-yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> The Committee
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't get it. Some of the shots are not close-ups in any form and
>>>>> some of the close-ups and pseudo-macros have no composition that is
>>>>> discernible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 'Twas ever thus. ;-)
>>>
>>> Why take Rich's word for the work submitted?
>>
>>
>> Because I have seen the submissions and I agree entirely with Rich's
>> comments.
>> Once again the SI plumbs the depths of mediocrity and
>> incompetence. But y'all seem to enjoy it, and it never gets any
>> better no matter what is said, so who cares? ;-)
>
>However all you have done is sprout blanket condemnation without one
>word of constructive criticism.


They are all "nice" shots. You are all doing "so well". Keep up the
"good" work ...

And keep taking the tablets so the Alzheimers (which seems to be a
qualifying requirement for the SI) won't make you *too* cross. ;-)

Re: Macro/Closeup
 

Huuter <Huu@Fujakki.jp> wrote:

>On 2012-05-30 18:36 , Bruce wrote:
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>> Why take Rich's word for the work submitted?
>>
>>
>> Because I have seen the submissions and I agree entirely with Rich's
>> comments.
>
>Here's a Tony "Bruce" Polson professional product shot:
>
>https://www.dropbox.com/s/all6e7aqk8zs8vt/TP%20TEAC.jpg
>
>Then there are the choo-choo shots...
>
>So, really, you don't have much to contribute... as usual.


Funny how Alan Browne can fake a Usenet post so it appears to come
from somewhere exotic but still cannot produce a decent shot for the
SI after nine years of not trying?

To learn absolutely nothing about photography in NINE YEARS is quite a
non-achievement.

A non-award winner for a lifetime of non-achievement and failure.

Re: Macro/Closeup
 

On May 30, 5:18*pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2012-05-30 13:52:07 -0700, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > On May 29, 8:21 pm, SI Committee <si.modera...@squigglethis-yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >>http://www.pbase.com/shootin/macrocloseup
>
> >> --
> >> The Committee
>
> > I don't get it. *Some of the shots are not close-ups in any form and
> > some of the close-ups and pseudo-macros have no composition that is
> > discernible.
>
> Aah! The rewind.
>
> You do understand that your level of credibility took a massive dive
> with your earlier "preemptive strike" post, don't you?
>
> Next time just comment on the individual submissions, and see if you
> can provide some constructive criticism.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck

Apologies, I didn't think the first post posted.

Re: Macro/Closeup
 

On May 30, 5:19*pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
wrote:
> On 2012-05-30 16:52 , RichA wrote:
>
> > no composition that is
> > discernible.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/143651823
>
> --
> "Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
> * * * * * * *-Samuel Clemens.

Again, for whatever reason, I didn't see it posted.

Re: Macro/Closeup
 

On 2012-05-31 06:22 , Bruce wrote:
> Huuter <Huu@Fujakki.jp> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-05-30 18:36 , Bruce wrote:
>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Why take Rich's word for the work submitted?
>>>
>>>
>>> Because I have seen the submissions and I agree entirely with Rich's
>>> comments.
>>
>> Here's a Tony "Bruce" Polson professional product shot:
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/all6e7aqk8zs8vt/TP%20TEAC.jpg
>>
>> Then there are the choo-choo shots...
>>
>> So, really, you don't have much to contribute... as usual.
>
>
> Funny how Alan Browne can fake a Usenet post so it appears to come
> from somewhere exotic but still cannot produce a decent shot for the
> SI after nine years of not trying?
>
> To learn absolutely nothing about photography in NINE YEARS is quite a
> non-achievement.
>
> A non-award winner for a lifetime of non-achievement and failure.

Isn't this what psychologists refer to as projection? Polson is so
predictably vindictive.

Ever since I called out Polson to "Walk the walk" and show his implied
photographic prowess, he has been on my ass.

So be it - good for a wry laugh if little else.

Re: Macro/Closeup
 

"alan1browne" <JerrySmoot@theremail.net> wrote in message
news:jq8mit$mbi$1@dont-email.me...
> On 2012-05-31 06:22 , Bruce wrote:
>> Huuter <Huu@Fujakki.jp> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-05-30 18:36 , Bruce wrote:
>>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Why take Rich's word for the work submitted?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because I have seen the submissions and I agree entirely with Rich's
>>>> comments.
>>>
>>> Here's a Tony "Bruce" Polson professional product shot:
>>>
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/all6e7aqk8zs8vt/TP%20TEAC.jpg
>>>
>>> Then there are the choo-choo shots...
>>>
>>> So, really, you don't have much to contribute... as usual.
>>
>>
>> Funny how Alan Browne can fake a Usenet post so it appears to come
>> from somewhere exotic but still cannot produce a decent shot for the
>> SI after nine years of not trying?
>>
>> To learn absolutely nothing about photography in NINE YEARS is quite a
>> non-achievement.
>>
>> A non-award winner for a lifetime of non-achievement and failure.
>
> Isn't this what psychologists refer to as projection? Polson is so
> predictably vindictive.
>
> Ever since I called out Polson to "Walk the walk" and show his implied
> photographic prowess, he has been on my ass.
>
> So be it - good for a wry laugh if little else.

Wow, what is it with him? Is he jealous or something? Granted, as stated,
my shots are out of focus or washed out---my fault poor camera - technique
etc. But what is it that drives him nuts about the SI, but yet doesn't
contribute?!