Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: [SI] Pairs comments - Alan B.

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: [SI] Pairs comments - Alan B.

 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2012
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:40:06 -0400, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Comments on the "Pairs, triplets, series, patterns, echoes, reflections"
>mandate.
>
>PREAMBLE
>
>This shootin mandate has rewarded us with a lot of good efforts and a
>surprisingly low number of old shots. People 'spotted' opportunities
>and used them to good, even great effect. Some things surprised me.
>For example the sense of "reflections" to me was to show both object and
>image, not just image as was present in a lot of shots (possibly not
>deliberately so in some). OTOH, some of the images used reflections
>well to layer image upon other scene elements.
>
>Technically, I found this lot of photos to be wanting - the subjects and
>opportunities were excellent but the execution was not very good.
>
>Also several people seem to have made their mandate in a single
>location, setting and time. This doesn't lead to the best selection of
>photos or opportunities.
>
>A thing that I think some shooters should work more on is "working" the
>subject. Don't take one or two photos. Take dozens. Experiment on
>perspective, FOV, DOF, isolation, abstractedness, BG placement - indeed
>various times of the day and different weather. We're well into the
>digital era and experimentation is very cheap (other than time of course).
>
>But, who am I to complain with a single entry...
>

As you know, my daughter and son-in-law submitted entries for the
first time. They don't read the newsgroup, so they don't know
anything about the background of the SI. All Cleary and Dave knew was
the subject of the mandate.

They did view the PBase page. What confused them was the word "PAIRS"
in front of each image. Both had submitted images with other factors
in mind. Once I explained that, they were OK with it.

The second thing that they commented on was the comments. I had sent
them all of the comments about their images (and mine) by email. One
comment about Cleary's sunflower was a question about the comment that
the image didn't really say "pairs". Evidently, she is not the only
one who was confused about the word attached to each image.

They were also a bit perplexed about some comments that assumed
different equipment was used than was available to photographer. I
can relate to this because you just suggested that I adjust my flash
setting. My SB400 has no such feature.

They were quite pleased, *quite* pleased, about the comments, though.
The only previous exposure they've had to critiques have been just the
typical "Great shot!" bullshit that most places provide. They were
delighted that people actually provided meaningful comments and
criticism.

The only real negative they expressed was that they were surprised
that so few people, considering the number that submitted images, took
the time to comment. They didn't comment, though, because they don't
have access to the newsgroup. I told them that I'd relay any future
comments.

Since there were no objections to their participation, they intend to
look for "On the road" images. I hope this is acceptable to all.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2012
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:03:47 -0400, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 2012-07-25 16:27 , tony cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:40:06 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Comments on the "Pairs, triplets, series, patterns, echoes, reflections"
>>> mandate.
>>>
>>> PREAMBLE
>>>
>>> This shootin mandate has rewarded us with a lot of good efforts and a
>>> surprisingly low number of old shots. People 'spotted' opportunities
>>> and used them to good, even great effect. Some things surprised me.
>>> For example the sense of "reflections" to me was to show both object and
>>> image, not just image as was present in a lot of shots (possibly not
>>> deliberately so in some). OTOH, some of the images used reflections
>>> well to layer image upon other scene elements.
>>>
>>> Technically, I found this lot of photos to be wanting - the subjects and
>>> opportunities were excellent but the execution was not very good.
>>>
>>> Also several people seem to have made their mandate in a single
>>> location, setting and time. This doesn't lead to the best selection of
>>> photos or opportunities.
>>>
>>> A thing that I think some shooters should work more on is "working" the
>>> subject. Don't take one or two photos. Take dozens. Experiment on
>>> perspective, FOV, DOF, isolation, abstractedness, BG placement - indeed
>>> various times of the day and different weather. We're well into the
>>> digital era and experimentation is very cheap (other than time of course).
>>>
>>> But, who am I to complain with a single entry...
>>>

>> As you know, my daughter and son-in-law submitted entries for the
>> first time. They don't read the newsgroup, so they don't know
>> anything about the background of the SI. All Cleary and Dave knew was
>> the subject of the mandate.

>
>They did fine.
>
>> They did view the PBase page. What confused them was the word "PAIRS"
>> in front of each image. Both had submitted images with other factors
>> in mind. Once I explained that, they were OK with it.

>
>Pairs was just a shorthand for file submission.


That's what I explained.

>>
>> The second thing that they commented on was the comments. I had sent
>> them all of the comments about their images (and mine) by email. One
>> comment about Cleary's sunflower was a question about the comment that
>> the image didn't really say "pairs". Evidently, she is not the only
>> one who was confused about the word attached to each image.

>
>In each announcement I put up the full title. The announcement page on
>Pbase has the full description.


They don't see the announcements.

>> They were also a bit perplexed about some comments that assumed
>> different equipment was used than was available to photographer. I
>> can relate to this because you just suggested that I adjust my flash
>> setting. My SB400 has no such feature.

>
>QUOTE
> Flash compensation is also available with optional SB-400,
> SB-800, SB-600, and SU-800 flash units
>UNQUOTE
>page 60. Fine Nikon D60 manual.
>http://finearts.uvic.ca/sim/equipmen.../Nikon_D60.pdf


You expect me to RTFM? Hell, I'm a hip-shooter. I just recently
purchased the SB-400 and rarely use it. I just happened to have it in
the bag that day.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2012
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:22:33 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2012-07-25 13:27:44 -0700, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
><<< Le Snipp >>>
>
>> As you know, my daughter and son-in-law submitted entries for the
>> first time. They don't read the newsgroup, so they don't know
>> anything about the background of the SI. All Cleary and Dave knew was
>> the subject of the mandate.
>>
>> They did view the PBase page. What confused them was the word "PAIRS"
>> in front of each image. Both had submitted images with other factors
>> in mind. Once I explained that, they were OK with it.

>
>The "Rulzpage" spells out quite a bit of the SI concept, including the
>thinking behind labeling for a specific mandate to newcomers.
>< http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage >



They didn't know about the Rulzpage. Remember, this was a
spur-of-the-moment casual invitation to submit some images.

Believe it or not, they don't have internet access at home. Cleary
accesses the internet at work. Not everyone is hooked on this thing
the way we are.
>>
>> The second thing that they commented on was the comments. I had sent
>> them all of the comments about their images (and mine) by email. One
>> comment about Cleary's sunflower was a question about the comment that
>> the image didn't really say "pairs". Evidently, she is not the only
>> one who was confused about the word attached to each image.

>
>I believe that the SI posting Committee had determined that maintaining
>a consistent labeling convention for this mandate would actually make
>things simpler, given the assumption that all those who had submitted
>actually read what Alan had requested regarding labeling, to use
>"Pairs-Name-x", one would think that all folks might understand the
>simplification. He is the one currently sorting through the submissions
>and posting them.


She wasn't complaining. Just confused.

>Personally I got it, and labeled my comments "Pairs-01"-"Pairs-03"
>regardless of content. Since I understood what the mandate was, "Pairs,
>Triplets, series, patterns, echoes, reflections" I didn't find it in
>anyway confusing.
>>
>> They were also a bit perplexed about some comments that assumed
>> different equipment was used than was available to photographer.

>
>Why? Some folks will comment without looking at the EXIF detail, or the
>might be missing, so assumptions are easily made.
>We were also fortunate to have a few newcomers dipping their toes into
>the murky waters of the commentary, and they have yet to develop a
>style or character to their comments. As you know it can be tough, and
>we should not discourage them.


This was their first time doing something like this. They didn't know
what to expect. Haven't you ever been new to something?


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2012
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:27:44 -0400, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
: As you know, my daughter and son-in-law submitted entries for the
: first time. They don't read the newsgroup, so they don't know
: anything about the background of the SI. All Cleary and Dave knew was
: the subject of the mandate.
:
: They did view the PBase page. What confused them was the word "PAIRS"
: in front of each image. Both had submitted images with other factors
: in mind. Once I explained that, they were OK with it.
:
: The second thing that they commented on was the comments. I had sent
: them all of the comments about their images (and mine) by email. One
: comment about Cleary's sunflower was a question about the comment that
: the image didn't really say "pairs". Evidently, she is not the only
: one who was confused about the word attached to each image.

I was. At first I thought it said "Paris". And I'm thinking, "What does this
mandate have to do with the capital of France?"

: They were also a bit perplexed about some comments that assumed
: different equipment was used than was available to photographer. I
: can relate to this because you just suggested that I adjust my flash
: setting. My SB400 has no such feature.

Neither, BTW, does the new Canon M. No flash, no flash setting. Now I'm *sure*
they mean to evolve it into a replacement for the 5D.

: They were quite pleased, *quite* pleased, about the comments, though.
: The only previous exposure they've had to critiques have been just the
: typical "Great shot!" bullshit that most places provide. They were
: delighted that people actually provided meaningful comments and
: criticism.
:
: The only real negative they expressed was that they were surprised
: that so few people, considering the number that submitted images, took
: the time to comment. They didn't comment, though, because they don't
: have access to the newsgroup. I told them that I'd relay any future
: comments.

As a last resort, they could read them (and I guess respond, although I've
never tried to do that) via Google Groups.

: Since there were no objections to their participation, they intend to
: look for "On the road" images. I hope this is acceptable to all.

Acceptable?? Surely you jest. We need all the interested newcomers we can
attract. I'm still trying to lure my daughter in. She spotted the reflection
opportunity that I submitted this time, and also the venue for a couple of
pictures I may submit next time. The only drawback is that she's more into
child photography than the the typical SI mandates.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2012
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:37:15 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2012-07-25 17:27:07 -0700, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:22:33 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-07-25 13:27:44 -0700, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>
>>> <<< Le Snipp >>>
>>>
>>>> As you know, my daughter and son-in-law submitted entries for the
>>>> first time. They don't read the newsgroup, so they don't know
>>>> anything about the background of the SI. All Cleary and Dave knew was
>>>> the subject of the mandate.
>>>>
>>>> They did view the PBase page. What confused them was the word "PAIRS"
>>>> in front of each image. Both had submitted images with other factors
>>>> in mind. Once I explained that, they were OK with it.
>>>
>>> The "Rulzpage" spells out quite a bit of the SI concept, including the
>>> thinking behind labeling for a specific mandate to newcomers.
>>> < http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage >

>>
>>
>> They didn't know about the Rulzpage.

>
>...but you did.


We discussed the mandate at a family outing at a rented cabin in the
Ocala National Forest. No internet access. I wasn't even sure they'd
follow up and submit until I got a thumb drive in the mail. (We send
thumb drives back-and-forth containing our images)

I haven't looked at the Rulzpage for over a year.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2012
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:22:33 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
: On 2012-07-25 13:27:44 -0700, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
: > The only real negative [my daughter and son-in-law] expressed was that
: > they were surprised that so few people, considering the number that
: > submitted images, took the time to comment. They didn't comment,
: > though, because they don't have access to the newsgroup. I told them
: > that I'd relay any future comments.
:
: What's new? We have regular commentators who chose not to contribute
: this time, other than responding to others comments on their work, and
: we had commentators who comment selectively on images they deem as
: worthy of their attention. Personally I believe that all images
: submitted are worthy of some comment, good bad, or indifferent.

All that prevents me from commenting on every picture, every time, is the
Republican Congress's surly unwillingness to adopt a 28-hour day and an 8-day
week. :^(

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2012
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:16:48 -0400, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 2012-07-25 20:22 , tony cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:03:47 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-07-25 16:27 , tony cooper wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:40:06 -0400, Alan Browne
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Comments on the "Pairs, triplets, series, patterns, echoes, reflections"
>>>>> mandate.
>>>>>
>>>>> PREAMBLE
>>>>>
>>>>> This shootin mandate has rewarded us with a lot of good efforts and a
>>>>> surprisingly low number of old shots. People 'spotted' opportunities
>>>>> and used them to good, even great effect. Some things surprised me.
>>>>> For example the sense of "reflections" to me was to show both object and
>>>>> image, not just image as was present in a lot of shots (possibly not
>>>>> deliberately so in some). OTOH, some of the images used reflections
>>>>> well to layer image upon other scene elements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Technically, I found this lot of photos to be wanting - the subjects and
>>>>> opportunities were excellent but the execution was not very good.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also several people seem to have made their mandate in a single
>>>>> location, setting and time. This doesn't lead to the best selection of
>>>>> photos or opportunities.
>>>>>
>>>>> A thing that I think some shooters should work more on is "working" the
>>>>> subject. Don't take one or two photos. Take dozens. Experiment on
>>>>> perspective, FOV, DOF, isolation, abstractedness, BG placement - indeed
>>>>> various times of the day and different weather. We're well into the
>>>>> digital era and experimentation is very cheap (other than time of course).
>>>>>
>>>>> But, who am I to complain with a single entry...
>>>>>
>>>> As you know, my daughter and son-in-law submitted entries for the
>>>> first time. They don't read the newsgroup, so they don't know
>>>> anything about the background of the SI. All Cleary and Dave knew was
>>>> the subject of the mandate.
>>>
>>> They did fine.
>>>
>>>> They did view the PBase page. What confused them was the word "PAIRS"
>>>> in front of each image. Both had submitted images with other factors
>>>> in mind. Once I explained that, they were OK with it.
>>>
>>> Pairs was just a shorthand for file submission.

>>
>> That's what I explained.
>>
>>>>
>>>> The second thing that they commented on was the comments. I had sent
>>>> them all of the comments about their images (and mine) by email. One
>>>> comment about Cleary's sunflower was a question about the comment that
>>>> the image didn't really say "pairs". Evidently, she is not the only
>>>> one who was confused about the word attached to each image.
>>>
>>> In each announcement I put up the full title. The announcement page on
>>> Pbase has the full description.

>>
>> They don't see the announcements.

>
>You can forward them by e-mail as copy-paste or link.


I didn't think of that before the first submission. It's been
explained now that she brought it up. Besides, the rulzpage is pretty
dull reading.

I'm just relating a newcomer's experience.

>>
>>>> They were also a bit perplexed about some comments that assumed
>>>> different equipment was used than was available to photographer. I
>>>> can relate to this because you just suggested that I adjust my flash
>>>> setting. My SB400 has no such feature.
>>>
>>> QUOTE
>>> Flash compensation is also available with optional SB-400,
>>> SB-800, SB-600, and SU-800 flash units
>>> UNQUOTE
>>> page 60. Fine Nikon D60 manual.
>>> http://finearts.uvic.ca/sim/equipmen.../Nikon_D60.pdf

>>
>> You expect me to RTFM? Hell, I'm a hip-shooter. I just recently
>> purchased the SB-400 and rarely use it. I just happened to have it in
>> the bag that day.

>
>I'm appalled that a man with your business acumen would make a capital
>acquisition without realizing full value of the equipment before it
>depreciates in value.


I don't consider $100, or whatever it was, to be a capital
acquisition. Like many things, it takes a mistake before there's
impetus to look into preventing a future mistake. It wasn't a money
shot to begin with.

As far as the SB400, it was a mistake in the first place. I should
have opted for an SB with a swivel head. It was an impulse buy. With
the SB400, I can direct the flash upwards for bounce, but I can't do
that in portrait. I'll experiment with a white card or something.

>I'll add here here that using that flash for fill lighting may give you
>more joy and happiness than using it as a key light.


Most of what I do involves not drawing attention to myself with a
flash.

I
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2012
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:17:56 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2012-07-25 17:54:16 -0700, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:22:33 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> : On 2012-07-25 13:27:44 -0700, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>> : > The only real negative [my daughter and son-in-law] expressed was that
>> : > they were surprised that so few people, considering the number that
>> : > submitted images, took the time to comment. They didn't comment,
>> : > though, because they don't have access to the newsgroup. I told them
>> : > that I'd relay any future comments.
>> :
>> : What's new? We have regular commentators who chose not to contribute
>> : this time, other than responding to others comments on their work, and
>> : we had commentators who comment selectively on images they deem as
>> : worthy of their attention. Personally I believe that all images
>> : submitted are worthy of some comment, good bad, or indifferent.
>>
>> All that prevents me from commenting on every picture, every time, is the
>> Republican Congress's surly unwillingness to adopt a 28-hour day and an 8-day
>> week. :^(
>>
>> Bob

>
>When we have a mandate where there are a more than welcome, larger
>number of contributors than in the recent past, I find I have to spent
>1-2 hours on the task.
>That 1-2 hours might be spread over 6 hours. So I write my draft using
>my current word processor on my Mac, "Pages". I pretty much create a
>basic template with the SI shooters and the label for each of their
>shots, and fill in my comments as I go. I take snack & whistle wetting
>breaks, or deal with other looming tasks as needed. I then copy the
>final commentary into a Usenet post.
>
>I could just as easily have posted my comments as a PDF.
>< http://db.tt/40nEpycw >


My comments tend to be long and rambling. I'm able to do this because
my wife went to nursing school in 1956. After a few years of OR
shifts starting at 7AM, which required arising at 5AM, she's never
been a night person.

I am. I seldom hit the sack before 1AM to 2AM, and stop watching any
TV shows when my wife retires. That leaves me hours to waste on
things like this.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2012
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:20:54 -0400, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 2012-07-25 20:43 , Robert Coe wrote:
>
>> I was. At first I thought it said "Paris". And I'm thinking, "What does this
>> mandate have to do with the capital of France?"

>
>No, no, no ...
>http://tinyurl.com/2cq6oss


I submit http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMM18_Paris_Indiana
Everything's bigger in Texas.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2012
On 7/25/2012 4:27 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:40:06 -0400, Alan Browne
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Comments on the "Pairs, triplets, series, patterns, echoes, reflections"
>> mandate.
>>
>> PREAMBLE
>>
>> This shootin mandate has rewarded us with a lot of good efforts and a
>> surprisingly low number of old shots. People 'spotted' opportunities
>> and used them to good, even great effect. Some things surprised me.
>> For example the sense of "reflections" to me was to show both object and
>> image, not just image as was present in a lot of shots (possibly not
>> deliberately so in some). OTOH, some of the images used reflections
>> well to layer image upon other scene elements.
>>
>> Technically, I found this lot of photos to be wanting - the subjects and
>> opportunities were excellent but the execution was not very good.
>>
>> Also several people seem to have made their mandate in a single
>> location, setting and time. This doesn't lead to the best selection of
>> photos or opportunities.
>>
>> A thing that I think some shooters should work more on is "working" the
>> subject. Don't take one or two photos. Take dozens. Experiment on
>> perspective, FOV, DOF, isolation, abstractedness, BG placement - indeed
>> various times of the day and different weather. We're well into the
>> digital era and experimentation is very cheap (other than time of course).
>>
>> But, who am I to complain with a single entry...
>>

> As you know, my daughter and son-in-law submitted entries for the
> first time. They don't read the newsgroup, so they don't know
> anything about the background of the SI. All Cleary and Dave knew was
> the subject of the mandate.
>
> They did view the PBase page. What confused them was the word "PAIRS"
> in front of each image. Both had submitted images with other factors
> in mind. Once I explained that, they were OK with it.
>
> The second thing that they commented on was the comments. I had sent
> them all of the comments about their images (and mine) by email. One
> comment about Cleary's sunflower was a question about the comment that
> the image didn't really say "pairs". Evidently, she is not the only
> one who was confused about the word attached to each image.
>
> They were also a bit perplexed about some comments that assumed
> different equipment was used than was available to photographer. I
> can relate to this because you just suggested that I adjust my flash
> setting. My SB400 has no such feature.
>
> They were quite pleased, *quite* pleased, about the comments, though.
> The only previous exposure they've had to critiques have been just the
> typical "Great shot!" bullshit that most places provide. They were
> delighted that people actually provided meaningful comments and
> criticism.
>
> The only real negative they expressed was that they were surprised
> that so few people, considering the number that submitted images, took
> the time to comment. They didn't comment, though, because they don't
> have access to the newsgroup. I told them that I'd relay any future
> comments.
>
> Since there were no objections to their participation, they intend to
> look for "On the road" images. I hope this is acceptable to all.
>
>

From my viewpoint, it should be encouraged. I also hope you will be as
candid with your public opinions of their images, as you are with ours.

--

PeterN
 
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] Pairs comments - Alan B. Robert Coe Digital Photography 1 07-27-2012 06:53 PM
Re: [SI] Pairs comments - Alan B. Robert Coe Digital Photography 1 07-27-2012 01:20 AM
Re: [SI] Pairs comments - Alan B. PeterN Digital Photography 0 07-26-2012 10:12 PM
Re: [SI] Pairs comments - Alan B. tony cooper Digital Photography 0 07-25-2012 08:50 PM
Re: [SI] Pairs comments - Alan B. tony cooper Digital Photography 0 07-25-2012 08:40 PM



Advertisments