Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: [SI] Call for mandates

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: [SI] Call for mandates

 
 
Michael Benveniste
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2010
"Alan Browne" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> That's the heart of the matter with "Bruce". He is terrified of
> showing his images. Probably for good reason. Whereas we don't
> mind the slings and arrows of others.


You assume he records any images at all, which is not in evidence.
I can't say I like it when my shots get panned, but it's a price
I'm sometimes willing to pay.

--
Mike Benveniste -- http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-02-2010
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:42:05 -0500, "Tim Conway"
: <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:
: >
: >"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
: >news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
: >> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:23:05 -0500, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >>>On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:29:03 +0000, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who think
they've been insulted?

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-02-2010
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:17:57 -0600, sheesh <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:10:19 -0000, "Calvin Sambrook"
: <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:
: >"Bowser" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
: >news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
: >>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.

How many humorless gas bags do we need in this newsgroup? They keep coming out
of the woodwork like termites.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2010
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:44:53 -0500, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>:
>: I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
>: actually a gross insult to capable photographers.
>
>You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who think
>they've been insulted?



There is quite a long list of capable photographers who participated
in the early days of the SI. They left both the SI and the SI's
sponsoring newsgroup, never to return.

You should hear what they think of the SI, and particularly of Alan
Browne's contributions! If you think I am overly critical, their
comments make mine look very gentle indeed.

 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2010
Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:44:53 -0500, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> :
>> : I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
>> : actually a gross insult to capable photographers.
>>
>> You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who think
>> they've been insulted?

>
>
> There is quite a long list of capable photographers who participated
> in the early days of the SI. They left both the SI and the SI's
> sponsoring newsgroup, never to return.


All kinds of capable photogs have left NGs right and left, as well as
canning usenet altogether.

> You should hear what they think of the SI, and particularly of Alan
> Browne's contributions! If you think I am overly critical, their
> comments make mine look very gentle indeed.


You and Alan. Sheesh. One of you eventually *could* stfu about each other.

In the meantime, you did not address the question. Not close.

--
john mcwilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Conway
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2010

"John McWilliams" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hkc84g$71f$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
> Bruce wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:44:53 -0500, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> : : I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
>>> : actually a gross insult to capable photographers.
>>>
>>> You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who think
>>> they've been insulted?

>>
>>
>> There is quite a long list of capable photographers who participated
>> in the early days of the SI. They left both the SI and the SI's
>> sponsoring newsgroup, never to return.

>
> All kinds of capable photogs have left NGs right and left, as well as
> canning usenet altogether.
>
>> You should hear what they think of the SI, and particularly of Alan
>> Browne's contributions! If you think I am overly critical, their
>> comments make mine look very gentle indeed.

>
> You and Alan. Sheesh. One of you eventually *could* stfu about each other.
>
> In the meantime, you did not address the question. Not close.


All that whining and complaining they do sounds like just sour grapes to me.
Look at all the constructive things they could do if they weren't being so
negative.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2010
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 12:00:22 -0500, "Tim Conway"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>All that whining and complaining they do sounds like just sour grapes to me.
>Look at all the constructive things they could do if they weren't being so
>negative.



The constructive things they could do?

Such as working as photographers? Over half of them do.

The rest are serious amateurs who have worked very hard to improve,
and most if not all of those now sell their work via exhibitions,
their own web sites, or stock agencies.

What unifies them as a group is a desire to improve by sharing, honest
critique and constructive criticism. The last two are completely
absent from the SI, where the participants automatically offer their
warm congratulations for the latest round of appallingly incompetent
snapshots.

The SI hit a nadir when several participants completely failed to
understand the simplest of mandates. But their snapshots were still
included, because no-one takes the mandates seriously.

Anyone who takes a few minutes to look at SIs over the years can see
how overall standards have plummeted, and how those few who have
participated throughout have shown no improvement whatsoever, in some
cases actually getting worse.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/root

 
Reply With Quote
 
G. Browne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2010
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:26:55 -0800, John McWilliams <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:44:53 -0500, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> :
>>> : I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
>>> : actually a gross insult to capable photographers.
>>>
>>> You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who think
>>> they've been insulted?

>>
>>
>> There is quite a long list of capable photographers who participated
>> in the early days of the SI. They left both the SI and the SI's
>> sponsoring newsgroup, never to return.

>
>All kinds of capable photogs have left NGs right and left, as well as
>canning usenet altogether.


All thanks to pretend-photographer trolls like you.

 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2010
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:26:55 -0800, John McWilliams
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:44:53 -0500, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> :
>>> : I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
>>> : actually a gross insult to capable photographers.
>>>
>>> You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who think
>>> they've been insulted?

>>
>>
>> There is quite a long list of capable photographers who participated
>> in the early days of the SI. They left both the SI and the SI's
>> sponsoring newsgroup, never to return.

>
>All kinds of capable photogs have left NGs right and left, as well as
>canning usenet altogether.


Some of which, undoubtedly, left due to a severe case of death.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Conway
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2010

"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:26:55 -0800, John McWilliams
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Bruce wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:44:53 -0500, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> :
>>>> : I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
>>>> : actually a gross insult to capable photographers.
>>>>
>>>> You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who
>>>> think
>>>> they've been insulted?
>>>
>>>
>>> There is quite a long list of capable photographers who participated
>>> in the early days of the SI. They left both the SI and the SI's
>>> sponsoring newsgroup, never to return.

>>
>>All kinds of capable photogs have left NGs right and left, as well as
>>canning usenet altogether.

>
> Some of which, undoubtedly, left due to a severe case of death.
>
>

Oh well, that tends to dwindle the numbers down a bit and not too much can
be done about that - at least until the resurrection.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: [SI] Call for mandates PeterN Digital Photography 0 11-21-2012 09:15 PM
Re: [SI] Call for mandates Richard Digital Photography 4 01-08-2011 10:02 PM
Re: [SI] Call for mandates John A. Digital Photography 3 01-05-2011 04:39 PM
Re: Call for mandates otter Digital Photography 2 01-04-2011 03:22 AM
Re: [SI] Call for mandates Bruce Digital Photography 2 01-22-2010 03:37 AM



Advertisments