Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Macro/Closeup

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Macro/Closeup

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2012
On May 29, 8:21*pm, SI Committee <(E-Mail Removed)>
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2012
RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On May 29, 8:21*pm, SI Committee <(E-Mail Removed)>
>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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2012
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2012-05-30 14:17:51 -0700, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On May 29, 8:21*pm, SI Committee <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> 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?



 
Reply With Quote
 
Huuter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2012
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.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2012
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2012-05-30 15:36:12 -0700, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-30 14:17:51 -0700, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> On May 29, 8:21*pm, SI Committee <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>> 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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2012
Huuter <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2012
On May 30, 5:18*pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2012-05-30 13:52:07 -0700, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
> > On May 29, 8:21 pm, SI Committee <(E-Mail Removed)>
> > 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2012
On May 30, 5:19*pm, Alan Browne <(E-Mail Removed)>
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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
alan1browne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2012
On 2012-05-31 06:22 , Bruce wrote:
> Huuter <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Conway
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-31-2012

"alan1browne" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:jq8mit$mbi$(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 2012-05-31 06:22 , Bruce wrote:
>> Huuter <(E-Mail Removed)> 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?!

 
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




Advertisments