Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: [SI] New Mandates

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: [SI] New Mandates

 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2010
On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:08:05 -0500, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:42:55 -0500, tony cooper
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>Has Bruce approved of these mandates?

>
>Yes. Bruce and I met and discussed these mandates at length. After
>several marathon sessions with heated arguments lasting countless
>hours on end, Bruce and I finally agreed on the mandates and capture
>dates. The duration of these sessions is why the mandates were late in
>coming.



ROTFL!!!

My approval was only reluctantly given, on the basis of a solemn
promise by Bowser that any entries that did not conform to the
requirements of the mandate would not be allowed.

Isn't that right, Bowser? After all, we wouldn't want another
embarrassing fiasco like the last time, now would we?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2010
Bruce wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:08:05 -0500, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:42:55 -0500, tony cooper
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> Has Bruce approved of these mandates?

>> Yes. Bruce and I met and discussed these mandates at length. After
>> several marathon sessions with heated arguments lasting countless
>> hours on end, Bruce and I finally agreed on the mandates and capture
>> dates. The duration of these sessions is why the mandates were late in
>> coming.

>
>
> ROTFL!!!
>
> My approval was only reluctantly given, on the basis of a solemn
> promise by Bowser that any entries that did not conform to the
> requirements of the mandate would not be allowed.
>
> Isn't that right, Bowser? After all, we wouldn't want another
> embarrassing fiasco like the last time, now would we?


Bruce-

I truly do hope you'll submit some stuff this time. Then maybe we can
get Alan to shut up about all the past **** he brings up - let's let the
past stay there.

--
john mcwilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2010
On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 08:36:24 -0800, John McWilliams
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:08:05 -0500, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:42:55 -0500, tony cooper
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> Has Bruce approved of these mandates?
>>> Yes. Bruce and I met and discussed these mandates at length. After
>>> several marathon sessions with heated arguments lasting countless
>>> hours on end, Bruce and I finally agreed on the mandates and capture
>>> dates. The duration of these sessions is why the mandates were late in
>>> coming.

>>
>>
>> ROTFL!!!
>>
>> My approval was only reluctantly given, on the basis of a solemn
>> promise by Bowser that any entries that did not conform to the
>> requirements of the mandate would not be allowed.
>>
>> Isn't that right, Bowser? After all, we wouldn't want another
>> embarrassing fiasco like the last time, now would we?

>
>Bruce-
>
>I truly do hope you'll submit some stuff this time. Then maybe we can
>get Alan to shut up about all the past **** he brings up - let's let the
>past stay there.


I really don't care if Bruce submits anything. And, I don't expect
him to. He's put himself out on a limb in the newsgroups, and
allowing us to judge an image of his would be the saw.

What I would like to see is how Bruce would critique the photos he
thinks are crap. I'd like to see how he thinks this one should be
cropped better, how that one should have been shot at a higher or
lower f/stop, or how one could have been better composed. It would be
interesting to see if he actually has an eye for photos.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-06-2010
On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 16:38:19 -0500, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:24:11 +0000, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:08:05 -0500, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:42:55 -0500, tony cooper
>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Has Bruce approved of these mandates?
>>>
>>>Yes. Bruce and I met and discussed these mandates at length. After
>>>several marathon sessions with heated arguments lasting countless
>>>hours on end, Bruce and I finally agreed on the mandates and capture
>>>dates. The duration of these sessions is why the mandates were late in
>>>coming.

>>
>>
>>ROTFL!!!
>>
>>My approval was only reluctantly given, on the basis of a solemn
>>promise by Bowser that any entries that did not conform to the
>>requirements of the mandate would not be allowed.
>>
>>Isn't that right, Bowser? After all, we wouldn't want another
>>embarrassing fiasco like the last time, now would we?

>
>I thought we discussed this at our committee meeting? Only those that
>submit get to complain, correct?



When it comes to evading the issue of the entries that don't comply
with the mandate, you are the ultimate professional. Obviously, you
were a very good choice to run the SI.

So if people can routinely submit entries that don't comply with the
mandate in one or more major respects, and we still see them on the
SI, why bother with the mandates at all?

I don't expect you to answer that one either.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2010
On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 15:51:03 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>Bowser has taken on the running of SI for the enjoyment of those who
>participate, not to receive the scorn of somebody such as you who
>chooses not to. It seems we should be grateful he does what nobody else
>cares to.



Yes, you should be grateful that the person running the SI is just
another in a long list of people who have been completely dedicated to
maintaining the SI's near-rock bottom standards, and taking whatever
opportunities arise to make them even lower.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2010
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:08:17 -0500, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>However, if you are the type of shooter
>who must slavishly follow a pre-set visual definition, then the
>shoot-in is not for you.



Except when shooting for stock, my work follows a brief that is set
by, or agreed with the client. If I don't work within the brief, I
won't get paid. And since the majority of my income comes from repeat
customers, referrals and recommendations, my business would rapidly go
downhill.

You might ask what relevance that has to the SI. Well, when the SI
started, the intention was that people submitting images to the SI
would also work to a brief. The idea was to make the experience
similar to that of a professional, in order to stretch people and help
them to improve. Laudable aims.

The problem was the "brief" became a "mandate". Now the word
"mandate" means an order, or a decree. It suggests a lot less
flexibility than a brief. In other words, it is even more strict.

However, those running the SI and submitting images to it took it to
mean quite the opposite, something far more relaxed than a brief. A
theme perhaps.

But even that is routinely ignored, and people submit any crappy old
snapshot whether it relates to the mandate or not. As a result, the
SI's standards get lower and lower. Anyone with any ability takes it
elsewhere and leaves the job of plumbing the depths of mediocrity to
those who are left behind, who have absolutely no interest in
self-improvement.

Why on earth would any competent photographer wish to waste their time
participating in such a complete mess?


 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2010
Bruce wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:08:17 -0500, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> However, if you are the type of shooter
>> who must slavishly follow a pre-set visual definition, then the
>> shoot-in is not for you.

>
>
> Except when shooting for stock, my work follows a brief that is set
> by, or agreed with the client. If I don't work within the brief, I
> won't get paid. And since the majority of my income comes from repeat
> customers, referrals and recommendations, my business would rapidly go
> downhill.
>
> You might ask what relevance that has to the SI. Well, when the SI
> started, the intention was that people submitting images to the SI
> would also work to a brief. The idea was to make the experience
> similar to that of a professional, in order to stretch people and help
> them to improve. Laudable aims.
>
> The problem was the "brief" became a "mandate". Now the word
> "mandate" means an order, or a decree. It suggests a lot less
> flexibility than a brief. In other words, it is even more strict.
>
> However, those running the SI and submitting images to it took it to
> mean quite the opposite, something far more relaxed than a brief. A
> theme perhaps.
>
> But even that is routinely ignored, and people submit any crappy old
> snapshot whether it relates to the mandate or not. As a result, the
> SI's standards get lower and lower. Anyone with any ability takes it
> elsewhere and leaves the job of plumbing the depths of mediocrity to
> those who are left behind, who have absolutely no interest in
> self-improvement.
>
> Why on earth would any competent photographer wish to waste their time
> participating in such a complete mess?


To educate and illuminate the great unwashed.
But thank you for the good overview.

==
--
john mcwilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2010
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 10:13:12 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2010-02-07 09:29:09 -0800, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 15:51:03 -0800, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bowser has taken on the running of SI for the enjoyment of those who
>>> participate, not to receive the scorn of somebody such as you who
>>> chooses not to. It seems we should be grateful he does what nobody else
>>> cares to.

>>
>>
>> Yes, you should be grateful that the person running the SI is just
>> another in a long list of people who have been completely dedicated to
>> maintaining the SI's near-rock bottom standards, and taking whatever
>> opportunities arise to make them even lower.

>
>What standards?



My point, exactly. There aren't any.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2010
"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:08:17 -0500, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>However, if you are the type of shooter
>>who must slavishly follow a pre-set visual definition, then the
>>shoot-in is not for you.

>
>
> Except when shooting for stock, my work follows a brief that is set
> by, or agreed with the client. If I don't work within the brief, I
> won't get paid. And since the majority of my income comes from repeat
> customers, referrals and recommendations, my business would rapidly go
> downhill.
>
> You might ask what relevance that has to the SI. Well, when the SI
> started, the intention was that people submitting images to the SI
> would also work to a brief. The idea was to make the experience
> similar to that of a professional, in order to stretch people and help
> them to improve. Laudable aims.
>
> The problem was the "brief" became a "mandate". Now the word
> "mandate" means an order, or a decree. It suggests a lot less
> flexibility than a brief. In other words, it is even more strict.
>
> However, those running the SI and submitting images to it took it to
> mean quite the opposite, something far more relaxed than a brief. A
> theme perhaps.
>
> But even that is routinely ignored, and people submit any crappy old
> snapshot whether it relates to the mandate or not. As a result, the
> SI's standards get lower and lower. Anyone with any ability takes it
> elsewhere and leaves the job of plumbing the depths of mediocrity to
> those who are left behind, who have absolutely no interest in
> self-improvement.
>
> Why on earth would any competent photographer wish to waste their time
> participating in such a complete mess?
>
>



Since you are so competent why don't you give us a link to you stock photos,
so that we may all learn and practice the self improvement you talk about.
..
Better yet, do you have a web page we can learn from?

--
Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2010
On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:03:37 -0500, "Peter"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:08:17 -0500, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>However, if you are the type of shooter
>>>who must slavishly follow a pre-set visual definition, then the
>>>shoot-in is not for you.

>>
>>
>> Except when shooting for stock, my work follows a brief that is set
>> by, or agreed with the client. If I don't work within the brief, I
>> won't get paid. And since the majority of my income comes from repeat
>> customers, referrals and recommendations, my business would rapidly go
>> downhill.
>>
>> You might ask what relevance that has to the SI. Well, when the SI
>> started, the intention was that people submitting images to the SI
>> would also work to a brief. The idea was to make the experience
>> similar to that of a professional, in order to stretch people and help
>> them to improve. Laudable aims.
>>
>> The problem was the "brief" became a "mandate". Now the word
>> "mandate" means an order, or a decree. It suggests a lot less
>> flexibility than a brief. In other words, it is even more strict.
>>
>> However, those running the SI and submitting images to it took it to
>> mean quite the opposite, something far more relaxed than a brief. A
>> theme perhaps.
>>
>> But even that is routinely ignored, and people submit any crappy old
>> snapshot whether it relates to the mandate or not. As a result, the
>> SI's standards get lower and lower. Anyone with any ability takes it
>> elsewhere and leaves the job of plumbing the depths of mediocrity to
>> those who are left behind, who have absolutely no interest in
>> self-improvement.
>>
>> Why on earth would any competent photographer wish to waste their time
>> participating in such a complete mess?
>>
>>

>
>
>Since you are so competent



I make no claims of competence. None.


>why don't you give us a link to you stock photos,
>so that we may all learn and practice the self improvement you talk about.



Anyone who has a genuine interest in the subjects I shoot will have
absolutely no problem finding them.


>Better yet, do you have a web page we can learn from?



I have several web pages. Anyone who has a genuine interest in the
subjects I shoot will have absolutely no problem finding them.

 
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] New Mandates! tony cooper Digital Photography 6 01-17-2011 12:23 PM
Re: [SI] New Mandates! Superzooms Still Win Digital Photography 2 09-24-2010 03:47 AM
Re: [SI] New Mandates! Bruce Digital Photography 9 09-23-2010 03:25 AM
Re: [SI] New Mandates! Get 'em while they're hot! Robert Coe Digital Photography 55 08-04-2010 08:43 PM
[SI] New mandates coming soon... Bowser Digital Photography 5 02-10-2010 03:48 AM



Advertisments