Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

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

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: [SI] Call for mandates

 
 
Calvin Sambrook
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2010
"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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2010
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.



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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
sheesh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2010
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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2010
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:29:03 +0000, Bruce <(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.
:
:
: 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2010
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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Conway
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2010

"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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2010
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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2010
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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Conway
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2010

"John McWilliams" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hjv31s$1jk$(E-Mail Removed)-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>


 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2010
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.


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
 
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