Re: Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by otter, Sep 15, 2011.

  1. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 09:29:53 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 9/16/2011 11:36 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:12:02 -0400, PeterN
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 9/16/2011 4:09 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:47:18 -0400, PeterN
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Absolutely no disrespect to any of you, I've learnt a heck of a lot more
    >>>>>> useful stuff from local art groups, galleries, self-employed pro.
    >>>>>> photographers, and the feature editors of publications than I've ever
    >>>>>> learnt from camera clubs :)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Depends on the club.
    >>>>> Generally, camera clubs are a good place to learn the basics. CC
    >>>>> competition "standards" are more craft than art. But one must understand
    >>>>> the rules before one can break them successfully.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Every camera club is different, but my time has been well-spent
    >>>> attending the meetings. I've learned more about what *not* to do than
    >>>> what I should do.
    >>>>
    >>>> The critiques bring out the flaws more than they compliment the good
    >>>> aspects. When you see how a photograph can be improved by cropping,
    >>>> you learn not include the extraneous in the next submission. In
    >>>> general, you learn *why* a particular photograph isn't as pleasing as
    >>>> you think it should be or why the judges aren't pleased with it.
    >>>>
    >>> We try to emphasize the positive.

    >>
    >> Who "we"? Our critiques are from at least one, if not two, non-member
    >> judges and one or two member judges. The images are graded without
    >> the grader knowing who shot the image.
    >>
    >> All the judges usually (but not always) compliment the image one way
    >> or the other, but then they say why it was a 7 instead of a 10.
    >>

    >
    >While we have competitions using outside judges, we also have critiques
    >by members, which are not scored as competitions.
    >

    I think it's a little different when you have member-to-member
    critiques on a face-to-face basis. Members tend to be more
    complimentary and more gentle in critiquing in that situation.

    Our critiques are by judges only, and the judges don't know whose
    photo it is.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 17, 2011
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. otter

    Bruce Guest

    tony cooper <> wrote:
    >
    >I think it's a little different when you have member-to-member
    >critiques on a face-to-face basis. Members tend to be more
    >complimentary and more gentle in critiquing in that situation.



    Obviously the members don't want to upset fellow members and risk
    receiving adverse comments about their own work. It is mutual
    admiration only, perhaps with a slight hint of 'damning with faint
    praise'. It is just like actors' praise of each other, which quickly
    achieves ridiculous heights, all because of the fear of what might be
    said in return, perhaps at a later date.

    Of course this can never be called 'critique'. It is about as far
    from honest and objective critique as it could get. And this is
    precisely where the SI finds itself.


    >Our critiques are by judges only, and the judges don't know whose
    >photo it is.



    If the judges are truly independent, that's the best (or least worst)
    way, but are the judges also members of the club? If so, their
    comments will be bound by the same constraints as I described above,
    and the whole exercise becomes pointless.
     
    Bruce, Sep 18, 2011
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 11:03:33 +0100, Bruce <>
    wrote:

    >tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>
    >>I think it's a little different when you have member-to-member
    >>critiques on a face-to-face basis. Members tend to be more
    >>complimentary and more gentle in critiquing in that situation.

    >
    >
    >Obviously the members don't want to upset fellow members and risk
    >receiving adverse comments about their own work. It is mutual
    >admiration only, perhaps with a slight hint of 'damning with faint
    >praise'. It is just like actors' praise of each other, which quickly
    >achieves ridiculous heights, all because of the fear of what might be
    >said in return, perhaps at a later date.
    >
    >Of course this can never be called 'critique'. It is about as far
    >from honest and objective critique as it could get. And this is
    >precisely where the SI finds itself.
    >
    >
    >>Our critiques are by judges only, and the judges don't know whose
    >>photo it is.

    >
    >
    >If the judges are truly independent, that's the best (or least worst)
    >way, but are the judges also members of the club? If so, their
    >comments will be bound by the same constraints as I described above,
    >and the whole exercise becomes pointless.


    Three judges each competition night x 10 competition nights per year =
    finding 30 judges. One of the three is always an outsider, and they
    the club tries to get two outsiders if they can.

    The remaining judges are members who are either professional
    photographers or very experienced amateurs.

    The grading is done prior to the meeting without knowing the name of
    the person submitting the image. The name of the submitter, and the
    points scored for the image, is given at the time the image is
    projected on the large screen. The critique is given at that time.

    A member judge might soften his critique once he knows the name of the
    member, but point count cannot be changed.

    The usual critique starts out "We liked this image (or some other pat
    on the back for the photographer) but we took points off for ...".




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 18, 2011
    #23
  4. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/18/2011 6:03 AM, Bruce wrote:
    > tony cooper<> wrote:
    >>
    >> I think it's a little different when you have member-to-member
    >> critiques on a face-to-face basis. Members tend to be more
    >> complimentary and more gentle in critiquing in that situation.

    >
    >
    > Obviously the members don't want to upset fellow members and risk
    > receiving adverse comments about their own work. It is mutual
    > admiration only, perhaps with a slight hint of 'damning with faint
    > praise'. It is just like actors' praise of each other, which quickly
    > achieves ridiculous heights, all because of the fear of what might be
    > said in return, perhaps at a later date.
    >
    > Of course this can never be called 'critique'. It is about as far
    > from honest and objective critique as it could get. And this is
    > precisely where the SI finds itself.
    >
    >
    >> Our critiques are by judges only, and the judges don't know whose
    >> photo it is.

    >
    >
    > If the judges are truly independent, that's the best (or least worst)
    > way, but are the judges also members of the club? If so, their
    > comments will be bound by the same constraints as I described above,
    > and the whole exercise becomes pointless.
    >


    Spoken by one who has no knowledge of the facts. Our club, while
    somewhat social, centers around photography. It is far fem a mutual
    admiration society.
    The comments can, and do trash individual images. It is not done in a
    mean spirited manner, or acceptance of crap. they are designed to
    educate and improve.
    .. For example:
    Someone submitted an uninteresting, out of focus image of a ship's bell.
    While a judge might say: "lousy image" and move to the next, the
    comment was a short mention of focus, lack of interesting subject matter
    and how to make sure items are in focus. IOW a bad image was used as a
    teaching session. Another poor image of a crowd was turned into a lesson
    on subject isolation and composition.
    Comments need not be mean spirited. But when an image is bad, the maker
    will be told that the image is bad. And more importantly, why.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 18, 2011
    #24
  5. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/18/2011 9:44 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 11:03:33 +0100, Bruce<>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> tony cooper<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> I think it's a little different when you have member-to-member
    >>> critiques on a face-to-face basis. Members tend to be more
    >>> complimentary and more gentle in critiquing in that situation.

    >>
    >>
    >> Obviously the members don't want to upset fellow members and risk
    >> receiving adverse comments about their own work. It is mutual
    >> admiration only, perhaps with a slight hint of 'damning with faint
    >> praise'. It is just like actors' praise of each other, which quickly
    >> achieves ridiculous heights, all because of the fear of what might be
    >> said in return, perhaps at a later date.
    >>
    >> Of course this can never be called 'critique'. It is about as far
    >>from honest and objective critique as it could get. And this is
    >> precisely where the SI finds itself.
    >>
    >>
    >>> Our critiques are by judges only, and the judges don't know whose
    >>> photo it is.

    >>
    >>
    >> If the judges are truly independent, that's the best (or least worst)
    >> way, but are the judges also members of the club? If so, their
    >> comments will be bound by the same constraints as I described above,
    >> and the whole exercise becomes pointless.

    >
    > Three judges each competition night x 10 competition nights per year =
    > finding 30 judges. One of the three is always an outsider, and they
    > the club tries to get two outsiders if they can.
    >
    > The remaining judges are members who are either professional
    > photographers or very experienced amateurs.
    >
    > The grading is done prior to the meeting without knowing the name of
    > the person submitting the image. The name of the submitter, and the
    > points scored for the image, is given at the time the image is
    > projected on the large screen. The critique is given at that time.
    >
    > A member judge might soften his critique once he knows the name of the
    > member, but point count cannot be changed.
    >
    > The usual critique starts out "We liked this image (or some other pat
    > on the back for the photographer) but we took points off for ...".
    >
    >
    >
    >


    We always use outside judges. On inter-club competitions, three judges
    are used, but a judge will be disqualified from scoring an image
    submitted by a member of that judge's club.

    Bruce's attitude is telling. One would hope that the camera salespeople
    we rely on for advice would encourage good image making, or at a minimum
    have some real interest in it.
    I often go to B & H, Just about every time, I am impressed that the
    salespeople in the different departments are quite knowledgeable and
    have shown me some impressive work of their own. When they are not
    overly busy they will go into lengthy explanations of how they do things. .


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 18, 2011
    #25
  6. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/18/2011 7:24 PM, Paul Furman wrote:
    > PeterN wrote:
    >> I will pass on one tip I learned for quickly setting a gray point. It
    >> takes longer to read, than do:
    >> Duplicate the base layer;
    >> blur it: filter! blur ! average;

    >
    > What is 'average'?



    It totally blurs the image and makes it one color, which is the average
    color for the entire image.
    I have no idea how the formula works, but is seems to.
    Co. I use it for removing color casts from images. OF COURSE, If you
    have a picture of a red rose, you don't usually want to set a gray
    point. ;-)

    >
    >
    >> create a curve adjustment layer'
    >> click on the center eye dropper and touch it to the blurred layer. It
    >> will turn 18% gray'
    >>
    >> delete the blurred layer and the base image will reflect the gray point
    >> setting;
    >> then set your black and white points.
    >> Note: this also works well with a levels adjustment layer.
    >>
    >>

    >



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 19, 2011
    #26
  7. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:24:02 -0700, Paul Furman <>
    wrote:

    >PeterN wrote:
    >> I will pass on one tip I learned for quickly setting a gray point. It
    >> takes longer to read, than do:
    >> Duplicate the base layer;
    >> blur it: filter! blur ! average;

    >
    >What is 'average'?

    In CS4, at least, if you go to Filter, the next options include
    >Blur>Average. I didn't bother to check 7.0.




    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 19, 2011
    #27
  8. otter

    Pete A Guest

    On 2011-09-19 00:08:59 +0100, Paul Furman said:

    > Pete A wrote:
    >> I've left my biggest obsession until last: "rendering intent." While
    >> writing my comments on SI submissions I have no idea as to the intended
    >> rendering of each image. I wonder, is its purpose: to look good as
    >> displayed on the Web page with a black background; to be the front cover
    >> of a magazine; to be a double-page spread in a prestigious journal; to
    >> be framed and offered for sale at a high price; or to be a giant poster
    >> on display in a shop or on billboard?

    >
    > My sax player should be framed at 8x10 in a local dimly lit cafe <g>.


    If you had a series of B&W images, taken with that lens, there is no
    reason why you couldn't get commissioned to supply pictures for a cafe
    or restaurant. It may not sound very prestigious, but if it's an
    establishment that attracts business clients, there's no better
    advertising than to have your name on every photo adorning the walls of
    their favourite eating house.

    The only reason that the lens is still in production is because it
    sells its own images, when used knowledgeably. You have that knowledge,
    take advantage of it.
     
    Pete A, Sep 19, 2011
    #28
  9. otter

    Bruce Guest

    tony cooper <> wrote:
    >On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 11:03:33 +0100, Bruce <>
    >wrote:
    >>tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>>I think it's a little different when you have member-to-member
    >>>critiques on a face-to-face basis. Members tend to be more
    >>>complimentary and more gentle in critiquing in that situation.

    >>
    >>
    >>Obviously the members don't want to upset fellow members and risk
    >>receiving adverse comments about their own work. It is mutual
    >>admiration only, perhaps with a slight hint of 'damning with faint
    >>praise'. It is just like actors' praise of each other, which quickly
    >>achieves ridiculous heights, all because of the fear of what might be
    >>said in return, perhaps at a later date.
    >>Of course this can never be called 'critique'. It is about as far
    >>from honest and objective critique as it could get. And this is
    >>precisely where the SI finds itself.
    >>
    >>>Our critiques are by judges only, and the judges don't know whose
    >>>photo it is.

    >>
    >>If the judges are truly independent, that's the best (or least worst)
    >>way, but are the judges also members of the club? If so, their
    >>comments will be bound by the same constraints as I described above,
    >>and the whole exercise becomes pointless.

    >
    >Three judges each competition night x 10 competition nights per year =
    >finding 30 judges. One of the three is always an outsider, and they
    >the club tries to get two outsiders if they can.



    Probably the same outsiders, drawn from a very small pool?


    >The remaining judges are members who are either professional
    >photographers or very experienced amateurs.



    In the UK it is very unusual to have club members who are or were
    professional photographers. Pro shooters have very little time for
    camera clubs which tend to be more like social clubs for older people
    where photography is something that the members have in common. There
    are very, very few camera clubs with members who aren't old, and they
    tend to be places where film is still popular.


    >The grading is done prior to the meeting without knowing the name of
    >the person submitting the image. The name of the submitter, and the
    >points scored for the image, is given at the time the image is
    >projected on the large screen. The critique is given at that time.
    >
    >A member judge might soften his critique once he knows the name of the
    >member, but point count cannot be changed.
    >
    >The usual critique starts out "We liked this image (or some other pat
    >on the back for the photographer) but we took points off for ...".



    Judges who do it regularly will no doubt have a pretty good idea who
    shot what.

    We have a regular customer who is a retired landscape painter and, to
    a lesser extent, a landscape photographer. He supplements his pension
    with a modest income from judging at camera clubs. It's a declining
    market as clubs close and aren't replaced by new ones.

    I asked him if he enjoyed judging, and what advice he would give
    anyone considering taking it up (we get many requests from camera
    clubs). He said he hated it, because few, if any camera club members
    had even a slight grasp of the basics of photography despite many
    having spent a lot of money on their photo outfits.

    His advice to anyone considering judging was not to upset anyone by
    being honest. Instead, a judge should always to try to be positive,
    even in the face of provocation represented by some truly atrocious
    shots. He was finding judging increasingly difficult as he returned
    to the same clubs year after year and saw exactly the same mistakes
    repeated over and over again, with individuals getting worse, not
    better.

    His most telling comment was that, whenever he came across anyone with
    any sign of real talent, he would strongly advise them to leave the
    camera club and never return. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Sep 19, 2011
    #29
  10. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 22:23:24 +0100, Bruce <>
    wrote:

    >tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 11:03:33 +0100, Bruce <>
    >>wrote:
    >>>tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>>>I think it's a little different when you have member-to-member
    >>>>critiques on a face-to-face basis. Members tend to be more
    >>>>complimentary and more gentle in critiquing in that situation.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Obviously the members don't want to upset fellow members and risk
    >>>receiving adverse comments about their own work. It is mutual
    >>>admiration only, perhaps with a slight hint of 'damning with faint
    >>>praise'. It is just like actors' praise of each other, which quickly
    >>>achieves ridiculous heights, all because of the fear of what might be
    >>>said in return, perhaps at a later date.
    >>>Of course this can never be called 'critique'. It is about as far
    >>>from honest and objective critique as it could get. And this is
    >>>precisely where the SI finds itself.
    >>>
    >>>>Our critiques are by judges only, and the judges don't know whose
    >>>>photo it is.
    >>>
    >>>If the judges are truly independent, that's the best (or least worst)
    >>>way, but are the judges also members of the club? If so, their
    >>>comments will be bound by the same constraints as I described above,
    >>>and the whole exercise becomes pointless.

    >>
    >>Three judges each competition night x 10 competition nights per year =
    >>finding 30 judges. One of the three is always an outsider, and they
    >>the club tries to get two outsiders if they can.

    >
    >
    >Probably the same outsiders, drawn from a very small pool?


    No, not at all. I can't remember one appearing twice in the same 12
    months. I can only remember one who appeared twice in 24 months.


    >
    >>The remaining judges are members who are either professional
    >>photographers or very experienced amateurs.

    >
    >
    >In the UK it is very unusual to have club members who are or were
    >professional photographers. Pro shooters have very little time for
    >camera clubs which tend to be more like social clubs for older people
    >where photography is something that the members have in common. There
    >are very, very few camera clubs with members who aren't old, and they
    >tend to be places where film is still popular.
    >
    >
    >>The grading is done prior to the meeting without knowing the name of
    >>the person submitting the image. The name of the submitter, and the
    >>points scored for the image, is given at the time the image is
    >>projected on the large screen. The critique is given at that time.
    >>
    >>A member judge might soften his critique once he knows the name of the
    >>member, but point count cannot be changed.
    >>
    >>The usual critique starts out "We liked this image (or some other pat
    >>on the back for the photographer) but we took points off for ...".

    >
    >
    >Judges who do it regularly will no doubt have a pretty good idea who
    >shot what.


    Somewhat true in that the member judges know who travels where, so if
    a shot taken in Marrakesh shows up they'll know who took it. Also,
    the nature photographers have a distinctive style.

    But, this isn't National Geographic. It's a local camera club where
    best-in-catagory gets a blue ribbon and a $25 gift card from a
    sponsor. Second place gets nada.

    >We have a regular customer who is a retired landscape painter and, to
    >a lesser extent, a landscape photographer. He supplements his pension
    >with a modest income from judging at camera clubs. It's a declining
    >market as clubs close and aren't replaced by new ones.


    Our judges get a $20 gift card from Home Depot. The cards are donated
    by Home Depot because a member is an executive there.


    >I asked him if he enjoyed judging, and what advice he would give
    >anyone considering taking it up (we get many requests from camera
    >clubs). He said he hated it, because few, if any camera club members
    >had even a slight grasp of the basics of photography despite many
    >having spent a lot of money on their photo outfits.


    Bruce, I don't think you'd give Henri Cartier-Bresson credit for being
    a good photographer, and you probably think that Ansel Adams just got
    lucky a few times.

    For some reason, you are incapable of appreciating anyone else's
    output.

    >
    >His advice to anyone considering judging was not to upset anyone by
    >being honest. Instead, a judge should always to try to be positive,
    >even in the face of provocation represented by some truly atrocious
    >shots. He was finding judging increasingly difficult as he returned
    >to the same clubs year after year and saw exactly the same mistakes
    >repeated over and over again, with individuals getting worse, not
    >better.


    You might look at http://www.orlandocameraclub.com/ and see some of
    our truly atrocious shots and read the section on "Round of Applause".


    >His most telling comment was that, whenever he came across anyone with
    >any sign of real talent, he would strongly advise them to leave the
    >camera club and never return. ;-)


    He's your kind of guy.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 19, 2011
    #30
  11. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/19/2011 8:18 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-09-19 14:44:36 -0700, tony cooper <>
    > said:
    >
    >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 22:23:24 +0100, Bruce <>
    >> wrote:

    >
    > <<< Le Snip >>>
    >
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Judges who do it regularly will no doubt have a pretty good idea who
    >>> shot what.

    >>
    >> Somewhat true in that the member judges know who travels where, so if
    >> a shot taken in Marrakesh shows up they'll know who took it. Also,
    >> the nature photographers have a distinctive style.
    >>
    >> But, this isn't National Geographic. It's a local camera club where
    >> best-in-catagory gets a blue ribbon and a $25 gift card from a
    >> sponsor. Second place gets nada.
    >>
    >>> We have a regular customer who is a retired landscape painter and, to
    >>> a lesser extent, a landscape photographer. He supplements his pension
    >>> with a modest income from judging at camera clubs. It's a declining
    >>> market as clubs close and aren't replaced by new ones.

    >>
    >> Our judges get a $20 gift card from Home Depot. The cards are donated
    >> by Home Depot because a member is an executive there.
    >>
    >>
    >>> I asked him if he enjoyed judging, and what advice he would give
    >>> anyone considering taking it up (we get many requests from camera
    >>> clubs). He said he hated it, because few, if any camera club members
    >>> had even a slight grasp of the basics of photography despite many
    >>> having spent a lot of money on their photo outfits.

    >>
    >> Bruce, I don't think you'd give Henri Cartier-Bresson credit for being
    >> a good photographer, and you probably think that Ansel Adams just got
    >> lucky a few times.
    >>
    >> For some reason, you are incapable of appreciating anyone else's
    >> output.

    >
    > …and absolutely nobody has been given the opportunity to appreciate
    > Bruce's finest output, in competition, SI submission, mutual admiration
    > society, or conversational posting of a URL directing our eyes to a
    > demonstration of his superior skills.
    >
    >
    >>
    >>>
    >>> His advice to anyone considering judging was not to upset anyone by
    >>> being honest. Instead, a judge should always to try to be positive,
    >>> even in the face of provocation represented by some truly atrocious
    >>> shots. He was finding judging increasingly difficult as he returned
    >>> to the same clubs year after year and saw exactly the same mistakes
    >>> repeated over and over again, with individuals getting worse, not
    >>> better.

    >>
    >> You might look at http://www.orlandocameraclub.com/ and see some of
    >> our truly atrocious shots and read the section on "Round of Applause".
    >>
    >>
    >>> His most telling comment was that, whenever he came across anyone with
    >>> any sign of real talent, he would strongly advise them to leave the
    >>> camera club and never return. ;-)

    >>
    >> He's your kind of guy.

    >
    > However he (the judge of Bruce's tale) will at least voice his opinion
    > to those who will hear. Bruce does not even make the effort to comment
    > on the work he is most critical of, the SI submissions. He just issues a
    > blanket condemnation of SI submissions along with his thin reasons for
    > refusal to participate.
    > Methinks there is a lack of confidence in the quality of Bruce's work
    > and any exposure of an example to the World might reveal his posturing
    > to be without substance.
    >
    > I only have memories of some grainy images of trains posted by one Tony
    > Polson some years ago. I believe this is one such example;
    > < http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000d.jpg >
    >
    >

    All that means is that Polson's knee is well trained to jerk on certain
    occasions.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 20, 2011
    #31
  12. otter

    otter Guest

    On Sep 19, 7:18 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > I only have memories of some grainy images of trains posted by one Tony
    > Polson some years ago. I believe this is one such example;
    > <http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000d.jpg>
    >


    If he took the picture just to document the train sighting, I willing
    to cut him some slack. He probably wasn't trying to make an artistic
    statement with that shot. Do you think so?

    Anyway, it seems Bruce thinks the SI should be some high-faluting
    contest with strict rules and professional judges with only
    professional quality submissions. If the SI had any pretensions of
    being what he criticizes it isn't, he might have a case. But it
    isn't, and doesn't pretend to be.

    Should the SI be changed to what he wants? What for? He doesn't
    contribute at all to it, so who cares what he thinks?

    I do like some of Bruce's other posts in this newsgroup. But I think
    he is clearly off-base on this.
     
    otter, Sep 20, 2011
    #32
  13. otter

    Bruce Guest

    tony cooper <> wrote:
    >On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 22:23:24 +0100, Bruce <>
    >wrote:
    >>I asked him if he enjoyed judging, and what advice he would give
    >>anyone considering taking it up (we get many requests from camera
    >>clubs). He said he hated it, because few, if any camera club members
    >>had even a slight grasp of the basics of photography despite many
    >>having spent a lot of money on their photo outfits.

    >
    >Bruce, I don't think you'd give Henri Cartier-Bresson credit for being
    >a good photographer, and you probably think that Ansel Adams just got
    >lucky a few times.



    Please explain how your reply in any way relates to my paragraph
    above? I quoted someone the words of a 'professional' judge without
    adding to them in any way, then you replied as if those words were
    mine, and twisted them out of all recognition in the process.

    What is the point of trying to have a reasoned discussion with you
    when you take *someone else's words*, then twist them, and use them to
    beat *me* over the head?

    Still, your point that a camera club competition should not be
    expected to reach high standards was well made, and I agree. The days
    when camera clubs helped to nurture and develop talent are long gone.
    But at least there is an element of competition, with marks given on a
    quasi-objective basis, and at least some pretence of self-improvement.
    The SI doesn't even have those basic features, which is why its
    standards are simply execrable.
     
    Bruce, Sep 20, 2011
    #33
  14. otter

    Bruce Guest

    otter <> wrote:
    >Anyway, it seems Bruce thinks the SI should be some high-faluting
    >contest with strict rules and professional judges with only
    >professional quality submissions. If the SI had any pretensions of
    >being what he criticizes it isn't, he might have a case. But it
    >isn't, and doesn't pretend to be.



    The original intention of the SI was to offer a means of
    self-improvement by working to the same sort of brief that a
    professional is expected to, and then have other participants,
    including professional photographers, offer critique. You might
    consider that high-faluting [sic].

    At the outset, there were several professional photographers who
    regularly posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm who offered to support
    the SI on that basis. They soon left, disillusioned by rapidly
    declining standards, the unwillingness of participants to pay more
    than lip service to the mandates (and sometimes not even that), the
    toe-curling critique of others by SI members who should never have
    been allowed to own a camera, let alone try to take pictures with it
    and the complete lack of any positive response to critique in the form
    of signs of improvement.

    So from its original lofty aspirations, the SI has descended into a
    morass of low quality snapshots taken by people of near-zero ability,
    but with lots of mutual back-slapping and faint praise for each
    other's execrable efforts. But it wasn't always this way, and it
    could so easily have been developed into something so much better.

    Lowfalutin? Photography doesn't get any lower than this.
     
    Bruce, Sep 20, 2011
    #34
  15. otter

    Noons Guest

    Bruce wrote,on my timestamp of 20/09/2011 8:51 PM:


    > So from its original lofty aspirations, the SI has descended into a
    > morass of low quality snapshots taken by people of near-zero ability,
    > but with lots of mutual back-slapping and faint praise for each
    > other's execrable efforts.


    Hey, it's a backwater club. What else do you expect?
     
    Noons, Sep 20, 2011
    #35
  16. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:39:12 +0100, Bruce <>
    wrote:

    >tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 22:23:24 +0100, Bruce <>
    >>wrote:
    >>>I asked him if he enjoyed judging, and what advice he would give
    >>>anyone considering taking it up (we get many requests from camera
    >>>clubs). He said he hated it, because few, if any camera club members
    >>>had even a slight grasp of the basics of photography despite many
    >>>having spent a lot of money on their photo outfits.

    >>
    >>Bruce, I don't think you'd give Henri Cartier-Bresson credit for being
    >>a good photographer, and you probably think that Ansel Adams just got
    >>lucky a few times.

    >
    >
    >Please explain how your reply in any way relates to my paragraph
    >above? I quoted someone the words of a 'professional' judge without
    >adding to them in any way, then you replied as if those words were
    >mine, and twisted them out of all recognition in the process.
    >
    >What is the point of trying to have a reasoned discussion with you
    >when you take *someone else's words*, then twist them, and use them to
    >beat *me* over the head?


    I neither attempted to relate to your paragraph nor twisted anything
    you said. It was a general observation based on your overall body of
    posts. You have never, to my memory, acknowledged that any photograph
    presented in the S-I groups or by links in non-S-I posts have any
    merit whatsoever.

    The problem your attitude presents is that you set no standard of
    acceptability. If nothing is acceptable, then your rating system is
    flawed because it doesn't set standards. When you rate everything as
    "execrable", without saying what wasn't accomplished or what was done
    wrong, the rating is meaningless.

    Your quote of the judge brought your overall body posts and general
    attitude to mind because the judge a person who admittedly continues
    to do something he despises doing and feels that "few, if any" people
    whose work he judges have any talent whatsoever. At least he
    acknowledges that "few" have some talent, which is more than you do.

    You and the judge are soured but kindred spirits. Still, nothing in
    my post dissembled what you wrote or quoted. If anything, it
    suggested the similarities of negativism between you and your judge.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 20, 2011
    #36
  17. otter

    Bruce Guest

    tony cooper <> wrote:
    >On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:39:12 +0100, Bruce <>
    >wrote:
    >>tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>>On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 22:23:24 +0100, Bruce <>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>>I asked him if he enjoyed judging, and what advice he would give
    >>>>anyone considering taking it up (we get many requests from camera
    >>>>clubs). He said he hated it, because few, if any camera club members
    >>>>had even a slight grasp of the basics of photography despite many
    >>>>having spent a lot of money on their photo outfits.
    >>>
    >>>Bruce, I don't think you'd give Henri Cartier-Bresson credit for being
    >>>a good photographer, and you probably think that Ansel Adams just got
    >>>lucky a few times.

    >>
    >>
    >>Please explain how your reply in any way relates to my paragraph
    >>above? I quoted someone the words of a 'professional' judge without
    >>adding to them in any way, then you replied as if those words were
    >>mine, and twisted them out of all recognition in the process.
    >>
    >>What is the point of trying to have a reasoned discussion with you
    >>when you take *someone else's words*, then twist them, and use them to
    >>beat *me* over the head?

    >
    >I neither attempted to relate to your paragraph nor twisted anything
    >you said.



    Apology accepted.


    >It was a general observation based on your overall body of
    >posts. You have never, to my memory, acknowledged that any photograph
    >presented in the S-I groups or by links in non-S-I posts have any
    >merit whatsoever.



    On the contrary, I have pointed out many times that a proportion of
    the early SIs included some excellent images. Those days have long
    gone, however.


    >The problem your attitude presents is that you set no standard of
    >acceptability. If nothing is acceptable, then your rating system is
    >flawed because it doesn't set standards. When you rate everything as
    >"execrable", without saying what wasn't accomplished or what was done
    >wrong, the rating is meaningless.



    The SI sets no standards. It sets mandates that are routinely
    ignored. Submissions that clearly contravene the requirements of the
    mandate are routinely included.

    It has been made abundantly clear to me on numerous occasions that:
    (1) suggestions for improvement are not something that people
    participating in the SI are looking for, and (2) comments are not
    welcome from anyone who does not participate, which I never will.

    It is a measure of the depths to which the SI has sunk that, this
    time, three images that were not even intended for the SI and did not
    relate to the mandate in any way were routinely put up on the SI web
    site for all to see. The whole thing is a sick joke.


    >Your quote of the judge brought your overall body posts and general
    >attitude to mind because the judge a person who admittedly continues
    >to do something he despises doing and feels that "few, if any" people
    >whose work he judges have any talent whatsoever.



    Lots of people do jobs that they despise. If it helps give him an
    income, he will do it willingly whether he enjoys it or not. It is
    obviously something that he does particularly well because he is in
    great demand by many camera clubs and very highly recommended by those
    where he has judged. The problem of a dearth of talent in camera
    clubs is endemic, but that is not his problem.


    >At least he
    >acknowledges that "few" have some talent, which is more than you do.



    Those who have any real talent would not waste their time on such a
    shabby exercise in utter mediocrity. One has to wonder precisely what
    would be the motives of a talented photographer who participated in
    such a sham. The talented photographers who participated at the
    outset all left. Most left quickly, after it became apparent that
    learning and improvement were not on the SI agenda in spite of what
    had been discussed when setting it up.


    >You and the judge are soured but kindred spirits. Still, nothing in
    >my post dissembled what you wrote or quoted. If anything, it
    >suggested the similarities of negativism between you and your judge.



    The judge and I have a great many things in our lives to be happy and
    positive about, and we enjoy those things to the full. In that we are
    kindred spirits. We waste very little of our time discussing
    talentless people and their petty little games.
     
    Bruce, Sep 20, 2011
    #37
  18. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 20:52:24 +0100, Bruce <>
    wrote:

    >tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:39:12 +0100, Bruce <>
    >>wrote:
    >>>tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>>>On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 22:23:24 +0100, Bruce <>
    >>>>wrote:
    >>>>>I asked him if he enjoyed judging, and what advice he would give
    >>>>>anyone considering taking it up (we get many requests from camera
    >>>>>clubs). He said he hated it, because few, if any camera club members
    >>>>>had even a slight grasp of the basics of photography despite many
    >>>>>having spent a lot of money on their photo outfits.
    >>>>
    >>>>Bruce, I don't think you'd give Henri Cartier-Bresson credit for being
    >>>>a good photographer, and you probably think that Ansel Adams just got
    >>>>lucky a few times.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Please explain how your reply in any way relates to my paragraph
    >>>above? I quoted someone the words of a 'professional' judge without
    >>>adding to them in any way, then you replied as if those words were
    >>>mine, and twisted them out of all recognition in the process.
    >>>
    >>>What is the point of trying to have a reasoned discussion with you
    >>>when you take *someone else's words*, then twist them, and use them to
    >>>beat *me* over the head?

    >>
    >>I neither attempted to relate to your paragraph nor twisted anything
    >>you said.

    >
    >
    >Apology accepted.


    You confuse "denial" with "apology" which, implicitly, confuses "I
    don't give a **** what you made of it" with "I'm sorry that you took
    it that way".

    >
    >>It was a general observation based on your overall body of
    >>posts. You have never, to my memory, acknowledged that any photograph
    >>presented in the S-I groups or by links in non-S-I posts have any
    >>merit whatsoever.

    >
    >On the contrary, I have pointed out many times that a proportion of
    >the early SIs included some excellent images. Those days have long
    >gone, however.


    My memory of the Shoot-In does not include the earlier days.
    >
    >>The problem your attitude presents is that you set no standard of
    >>acceptability. If nothing is acceptable, then your rating system is
    >>flawed because it doesn't set standards. When you rate everything as
    >>"execrable", without saying what wasn't accomplished or what was done
    >>wrong, the rating is meaningless.

    >
    >
    >The SI sets no standards.


    Yes, exactly.

    >It sets mandates that are routinely ignored. Submissions that clearly contravene the requirements of the
    >mandate are routinely included.


    If there are no standards (or, more accurately, only loose standards),
    then mandates can be followed or ignored and submissions can
    contravene requirements. It's a group endeavor, and the people within
    the group are quite satisfied with the loose standards. If you are
    not in the group, what place is it of yours to criticize the
    looseness?

    >It has been made abundantly clear to me on numerous occasions that:
    >(1) suggestions for improvement are not something that people
    >participating in the SI are looking for, and (2) comments are not
    >welcome from anyone who does not participate, which I never will.


    I dunno about that. My own comments have included - sometimes rather
    heavy-handed - suggestions for improvement and no one has voiced any
    objections. I've seen several other comments that included
    suggestions for improvement with no corresponding objections.

    Where do you get these ideas?

    >It is a measure of the depths to which the SI has sunk that, this
    >time, three images that were not even intended for the SI and did not
    >relate to the mandate in any way were routinely put up on the SI web
    >site for all to see. The whole thing is a sick joke.


    Bowser is not a judge, here. He's just the technician who does
    whatever it takes to move the images from the submission format to the
    web page. He's doesn't need to even look at the images to do this, and
    isn't responsible for content. The submitter made a mistake.
    >
    >The judge and I have a great many things in our lives to be happy and
    >positive about, and we enjoy those things to the full. In that we are
    >kindred spirits. We waste very little of our time discussing
    >talentless people and their petty little games.


    You spare the judge hearing your views of talentless people, but waste
    a great deal of our time by going on-and-on about the subject.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Sep 20, 2011
    #38
  19. []
    > You spare the judge hearing your views of talentless people, but waste
    > a great deal of our time by going on-and-on about the subject.
    > --
    > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


    Makes me wonder what Bruce's real agenda is here. Why doesn't he submit
    some photos to raise the standard, if that's what is needed?

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Sep 21, 2011
    #39
  20. otter

    Bruce Guest

    tony cooper <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 20:52:24 +0100, Bruce <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>>On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:39:12 +0100, Bruce <>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>>tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>>>>On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 22:23:24 +0100, Bruce <>
    >>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>>I asked him if he enjoyed judging, and what advice he would give
    >>>>>>anyone considering taking it up (we get many requests from camera
    >>>>>>clubs). He said he hated it, because few, if any camera club members
    >>>>>>had even a slight grasp of the basics of photography despite many
    >>>>>>having spent a lot of money on their photo outfits.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Bruce, I don't think you'd give Henri Cartier-Bresson credit for being
    >>>>>a good photographer, and you probably think that Ansel Adams just got
    >>>>>lucky a few times.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Please explain how your reply in any way relates to my paragraph
    >>>>above? I quoted someone the words of a 'professional' judge without
    >>>>adding to them in any way, then you replied as if those words were
    >>>>mine, and twisted them out of all recognition in the process.
    >>>>
    >>>>What is the point of trying to have a reasoned discussion with you
    >>>>when you take *someone else's words*, then twist them, and use them to
    >>>>beat *me* over the head?
    >>>
    >>>I neither attempted to relate to your paragraph nor twisted anything
    >>>you said.

    >>
    >>
    >>Apology accepted.

    >
    >You confuse "denial" with "apology" which, implicitly, confuses "I
    >don't give a **** what you made of it" with "I'm sorry that you took
    >it that way".



    A second apology. How kind, and so sincere too!

    I will accept it with the same grace.


    >>>It was a general observation based on your overall body of
    >>>posts. You have never, to my memory, acknowledged that any photograph
    >>>presented in the S-I groups or by links in non-S-I posts have any
    >>>merit whatsoever.

    >>
    >>On the contrary, I have pointed out many times that a proportion of
    >>the early SIs included some excellent images. Those days have long
    >>gone, however.

    >
    >My memory of the Shoot-In does not include the earlier days.
    >>
    >>>The problem your attitude presents is that you set no standard of
    >>>acceptability. If nothing is acceptable, then your rating system is
    >>>flawed because it doesn't set standards. When you rate everything as
    >>>"execrable", without saying what wasn't accomplished or what was done
    >>>wrong, the rating is meaningless.

    >>
    >>
    >>The SI sets no standards.

    >
    >Yes, exactly.
    >
    >>It sets mandates that are routinely ignored. Submissions that clearly contravene the requirements of the
    >>mandate are routinely included.

    >
    >If there are no standards (or, more accurately, only loose standards),
    >then mandates can be followed or ignored and submissions can
    >contravene requirements. It's a group endeavor, and the people within
    >the group are quite satisfied with the loose standards. If you are
    >not in the group, what place is it of yours to criticize the
    >looseness?



    If SI members choose to flood this and other public newsgroups with
    mandates, reminders, announcements, links to the web site and those
    appallingly embarrassing comments on each other's "work", they have
    chosen to place the SI in the public domain. It is my right to
    comment if I wish, and in whatever way I wish.

    I am merely exercising my freedom of speech. That is "my place". If
    you don't like that, tough.

    Take the whole embarrassing farrago private, as I have suggested many
    times, and you can happily continue your group masturbation sessions
    without anyone else knowing what is going on.


    >>It has been made abundantly clear to me on numerous occasions that:
    >>(1) suggestions for improvement are not something that people
    >>participating in the SI are looking for, and (2) comments are not
    >>welcome from anyone who does not participate, which I never will.

    >
    >I dunno about that. My own comments have included - sometimes rather
    >heavy-handed - suggestions for improvement and no one has voiced any
    >objections. I've seen several other comments that included
    >suggestions for improvement with no corresponding objections.
    >
    >Where do you get these ideas?



    From SI members on this form and in email. I have been left in no
    doubt that improvement is not part of the SI, although it was a prime
    objective at the outset.


    >>It is a measure of the depths to which the SI has sunk that, this
    >>time, three images that were not even intended for the SI and did not
    >>relate to the mandate in any way were routinely put up on the SI web
    >>site for all to see. The whole thing is a sick joke.

    >
    >Bowser is not a judge, here. He's just the technician who does
    >whatever it takes to move the images from the submission format to the
    >web page. He's doesn't need to even look at the images to do this, and
    >isn't responsible for content.



    I see. He was only obeying orders.


    >The submitter made a mistake.



    One of many, it seems. Participation in the SI farce being another.


    >>The judge and I have a great many things in our lives to be happy and
    >>positive about, and we enjoy those things to the full. In that we are
    >>kindred spirits. We waste very little of our time discussing
    >>talentless people and their petty little games.

    >
    >You spare the judge hearing your views of talentless people, but waste
    >a great deal of our time by going on-and-on about the subject.



    It is entirely your choice whether you choose to read and/or respond
    to my posts here. If you feel that is a waste of your valuable time,
    but you still do it, what does that say about your judgement?

    Of course your participation in the SI says more about your judgement,
    or lack of it, than any words of yours ever could.
     
    Bruce, Sep 21, 2011
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. PeterN

    Re: [SI] Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!

    PeterN, Sep 14, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    313
    PeterN
    Sep 14, 2011
  2. otter

    Re: Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!

    otter, Sep 14, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    304
    Peter Chant
    Sep 15, 2011
  3. Pete A

    Re: [SI] Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!

    Pete A, Sep 14, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    280
    PeterN
    Sep 16, 2011
  4. Stuffed Crust

    Re: [SI] Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!

    Stuffed Crust, Sep 14, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    459
    Ray Fischer
    Sep 25, 2011
  5. DanP

    Re: [SI] Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!

    DanP, Sep 14, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    270
    PeterN
    Sep 14, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page