Re: Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!

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

  1. otter

    Bruce Guest

    Elliott Roper <> wrote:
    >Your comments about cameras and the industry are very welcome. It would
    >be great if you would continue to post them. But please consider
    >whether your sneering about the Shoot-in is increasing your reputation.



    Please do not think, not even for a single second, that I care whether
    or not my comments meet with your approval.
     
    Bruce, Sep 21, 2011
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. otter

    DanP Guest

    On Wednesday, 21 September 2011 11:29:39 UTC+1, Bruce wrote:
    > Elliott Roper <> wrote:
    > >Your comments about cameras and the industry are very welcome. It would
    > >be great if you would continue to post them. But please consider
    > >whether your sneering about the Shoot-in is increasing your reputation.

    >
    >
    > Please do not think, not even for a single second, that I care whether
    > or not my comments meet with your approval.


    You're a twat.

    DanP
     
    DanP, Sep 21, 2011
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. otter

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/21/2011 5:55 AM, Elliott Roper wrote:
    > In article<>, Bruce
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> tony cooper<> wrote:

    > <snip>
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > Bruce, I'm a newbie here, so I was interested in your assertion that
    > the SI has gone downhill. It's all there for the last 8 years, so I had
    > a look.
    >
    > There are some good shots in the early days. There is also a lot of
    > rubbish. Some of the early contributors are still contributing. It is
    > hard to say whether an individual contributor has "improved'. You would
    > expect change over such a long period regardless. It's hard to make a
    > sweeping generalisation on such a small sample of one person's work.
    > Some of the early birds who are no longer seen put some excellent
    > images up there. Some of the others might have fled in embarrassment.
    >
    > There is no evidence of the latter part of your assertion "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."
    >
    > I do note the weasel worded first sentence however. Why do you bother?
    >
    > Recent SI's have had some excellent pictures. As far as I can tell, and
    > I don't claim to be a great photographer or critic, so go ahead and
    > sneer if it makes you feel superior, some of the very best are very
    > recent.
    >
    > Despite your mealy-mouthed sniping, recent comments on the SI's have
    > been helpful and constructive. Taken together with the pictures they
    > are useful for someone trying to get better at it.
    >
    > Your comments about cameras and the industry are very welcome. It would
    > be great if you would continue to post them. But please consider
    > whether your sneering about the Shoot-in is increasing your reputation.
    >


    His comments are definitely increasing his reputation for ..............

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 21, 2011
    #43
  4. otter

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 11:29:39 +0100, Bruce <> wrote:
    : Elliott Roper <> wrote:
    : >Your comments about cameras and the industry are very welcome. It would
    : >be great if you would continue to post them. But please consider
    : >whether your sneering about the Shoot-in is increasing your reputation.
    :
    :
    : Please do not think, not even for a single second, that I care whether
    : or not my comments meet with your approval.

    I'm starting to believe that that's true. Your diatribes against the SI make
    no sense as comments aimed at us. They contain no substantive criticism and
    make no actionable suggestions. So the only sensible explanation is that
    they're largely aimed at yourself, their purpose apparently being to reassure
    you, in the absence of actual evidence, that you're a better photographer than
    we are. If I'm wrong, feel free to prove it; but common sense tells me that
    I'm not.

    Elliott may consider himself a newbie, but I think he's hit the nail on the
    head. Most of us find your comments on photographic equipment and the
    machinations of the industry to be interesting and informative. But your
    continuing bullshit about the SI is as embarrassing to read as it should be to
    write, and serves only to make you come across as a crackpot. If that doesn't
    bother you, fine. I guess it shouldn't bother us either.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Sep 23, 2011
    #44
  5. otter

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Sep 24, 8:09 am, Alan Browne <>
    wrote:

    >
    > > Anyway I was able to find this faint echo reverberating off the walls of
    > > the internet.
    > > <http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Polson_01.jpg>

    >
    > Annika made that (Bret).
    >



    Oh yeah, blame me.
     
    Annika1980, Sep 25, 2011
    #45
  6. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:16:39 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 9/16/2011 5:28 PM, Pete A wrote:
    >> On 2011-09-16 19:08:06 +0100, tony cooper said:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:28:14 +0100, Pete A
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> My artistic and technical knowledge is very limited, which makes me
    >>>> totally unqualified to comment on the submissions. Who the hell am I to
    >>>> critique the works of others?
    >>>
    >>> This, frankly, is bullshit. We are *all* qualified to judge and
    >>> comment on all the photographs submitted. The only qualification
    >>> necessary is the ability to form and express an opinion.
    >>>
    >>> What makes you think your opinion is any less valid than anyone
    >>> else's? You may see something - good or bad - in photo that no one
    >>> else sees or brings up.

    >>
    >> I find it very difficult to express my opinions in writing - it took me
    >> five hours to write my comments on the submissions to this SI. I enjoyed
    >> doing it and I took the time because in a previous post you mentioned
    >> that there was a lack of negative feedback (suggestions for improvement).
    >>
    >> Hopefully this time, I've contributed worthwhile observations from my
    >> areas of knowledge that will benefit others.
    >>
    >> The last thing I want anyone to do is degrade their work of art because
    >> of something I've said. In my opinion, some contributors to the SI are
    >> overly willing to adjust the artistic rendition of their image based on
    >> feedback - feedback that I strongly disagree with, but I remain silent.
    >> I do not wish to start an argument, furthermore, I have no empirical
    >> evidence for my disagreement.
    >>
    >> What really pisses me off is when I see budding artists who are
    >> compliant enough (through admirable humility) to willingly degrade their
    >> art based on the feedback of those who totally missed the point of their
    >> art.
    >>
    >> But, like I said, who the hell am I to make such powerful statements?
    >> It's just my humble opinions at the end of the day.
    >>

    >
    >Don't confuse humility with a lack of self confidence.
    >I try to make it clear, that my comments are only my opinion and the
    >artist should not take them literally, but should merely consider them.


    You are replying to September post. If you follow Pete's comments,
    you know he experiences mood swings that range from supportive of
    other people's work to vitriolic attacks on the same people. What he
    thought in September may not be what he'll write about today.

    That's Pete. You take him as he is.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Feb 15, 2012
    #46
  7. otter

    Pete A Guest

    On 2012-02-15 16:07:46 +0000, tony cooper said:

    > On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:16:39 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 9/16/2011 5:28 PM, Pete A wrote:
    >>> On 2011-09-16 19:08:06 +0100, tony cooper said:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:28:14 +0100, Pete A
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> My artistic and technical knowledge is very limited, which makes me
    >>>>> totally unqualified to comment on the submissions. Who the hell am I to
    >>>>> critique the works of others?
    >>>>
    >>>> This, frankly, is bullshit. We are *all* qualified to judge and
    >>>> comment on all the photographs submitted. The only qualification
    >>>> necessary is the ability to form and express an opinion.
    >>>>
    >>>> What makes you think your opinion is any less valid than anyone
    >>>> else's? You may see something - good or bad - in photo that no one
    >>>> else sees or brings up.
    >>>
    >>> I find it very difficult to express my opinions in writing - it took me
    >>> five hours to write my comments on the submissions to this SI. I enjoyed
    >>> doing it and I took the time because in a previous post you mentioned
    >>> that there was a lack of negative feedback (suggestions for improvement).
    >>>
    >>> Hopefully this time, I've contributed worthwhile observations from my
    >>> areas of knowledge that will benefit others.
    >>>
    >>> The last thing I want anyone to do is degrade their work of art because
    >>> of something I've said. In my opinion, some contributors to the SI are
    >>> overly willing to adjust the artistic rendition of their image based on
    >>> feedback - feedback that I strongly disagree with, but I remain silent.
    >>> I do not wish to start an argument, furthermore, I have no empirical
    >>> evidence for my disagreement.
    >>>
    >>> What really pisses me off is when I see budding artists who are
    >>> compliant enough (through admirable humility) to willingly degrade their
    >>> art based on the feedback of those who totally missed the point of their
    >>> art.
    >>>
    >>> But, like I said, who the hell am I to make such powerful statements?
    >>> It's just my humble opinions at the end of the day.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Don't confuse humility with a lack of self confidence.
    >> I try to make it clear, that my comments are only my opinion and the
    >> artist should not take them literally, but should merely consider them.

    >
    > You are replying to September post. If you follow Pete's comments,
    > you know he experiences mood swings that range from supportive of
    > other people's work to vitriolic attacks on the same people. What he
    > thought in September may not be what he'll write about today.
    >
    > That's Pete. You take him as he is.


    Well, he did reply _during_ September. Is that unusual for a September post?
     
    Pete A, Feb 15, 2012
    #47
  8. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:37:40 +0000, Pete A
    <> wrote:

    >On 2012-02-15 16:07:46 +0000, tony cooper said:
    >
    >> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:16:39 -0400, PeterN
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 9/16/2011 5:28 PM, Pete A wrote:
    >>>> On 2011-09-16 19:08:06 +0100, tony cooper said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:28:14 +0100, Pete A
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> My artistic and technical knowledge is very limited, which makes me
    >>>>>> totally unqualified to comment on the submissions. Who the hell am I to
    >>>>>> critique the works of others?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> This, frankly, is bullshit. We are *all* qualified to judge and
    >>>>> comment on all the photographs submitted. The only qualification
    >>>>> necessary is the ability to form and express an opinion.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What makes you think your opinion is any less valid than anyone
    >>>>> else's? You may see something - good or bad - in photo that no one
    >>>>> else sees or brings up.
    >>>>
    >>>> I find it very difficult to express my opinions in writing - it took me
    >>>> five hours to write my comments on the submissions to this SI. I enjoyed
    >>>> doing it and I took the time because in a previous post you mentioned
    >>>> that there was a lack of negative feedback (suggestions for improvement).
    >>>>
    >>>> Hopefully this time, I've contributed worthwhile observations from my
    >>>> areas of knowledge that will benefit others.
    >>>>
    >>>> The last thing I want anyone to do is degrade their work of art because
    >>>> of something I've said. In my opinion, some contributors to the SI are
    >>>> overly willing to adjust the artistic rendition of their image based on
    >>>> feedback - feedback that I strongly disagree with, but I remain silent.
    >>>> I do not wish to start an argument, furthermore, I have no empirical
    >>>> evidence for my disagreement.
    >>>>
    >>>> What really pisses me off is when I see budding artists who are
    >>>> compliant enough (through admirable humility) to willingly degrade their
    >>>> art based on the feedback of those who totally missed the point of their
    >>>> art.
    >>>>
    >>>> But, like I said, who the hell am I to make such powerful statements?
    >>>> It's just my humble opinions at the end of the day.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Don't confuse humility with a lack of self confidence.
    >>> I try to make it clear, that my comments are only my opinion and the
    >>> artist should not take them literally, but should merely consider them.

    >>
    >> You are replying to September post. If you follow Pete's comments,
    >> you know he experiences mood swings that range from supportive of
    >> other people's work to vitriolic attacks on the same people. What he
    >> thought in September may not be what he'll write about today.
    >>
    >> That's Pete. You take him as he is.

    >
    >Well, he did reply _during_ September. Is that unusual for a September post?


    It just appeared today. That is unusual.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Feb 15, 2012
    #48
  9. otter

    Pete A Guest

    On 2012-02-15 20:08:14 +0000, tony cooper said:

    > On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:37:40 +0000, Pete A
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2012-02-15 16:07:46 +0000, tony cooper said:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:16:39 -0400, PeterN
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 9/16/2011 5:28 PM, Pete A wrote:
    >>>>> On 2011-09-16 19:08:06 +0100, tony cooper said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:28:14 +0100, Pete A
    >>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> My artistic and technical knowledge is very limited, which makes me
    >>>>>>> totally unqualified to comment on the submissions. Who the hell am I to
    >>>>>>> critique the works of others?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> This, frankly, is bullshit. We are *all* qualified to judge and
    >>>>>> comment on all the photographs submitted. The only qualification
    >>>>>> necessary is the ability to form and express an opinion.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> What makes you think your opinion is any less valid than anyone
    >>>>>> else's? You may see something - good or bad - in photo that no one
    >>>>>> else sees or brings up.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I find it very difficult to express my opinions in writing - it took me
    >>>>> five hours to write my comments on the submissions to this SI. I enjoyed
    >>>>> doing it and I took the time because in a previous post you mentioned
    >>>>> that there was a lack of negative feedback (suggestions for improvement).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Hopefully this time, I've contributed worthwhile observations from my
    >>>>> areas of knowledge that will benefit others.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The last thing I want anyone to do is degrade their work of art because
    >>>>> of something I've said. In my opinion, some contributors to the SI are
    >>>>> overly willing to adjust the artistic rendition of their image based on
    >>>>> feedback - feedback that I strongly disagree with, but I remain silent.
    >>>>> I do not wish to start an argument, furthermore, I have no empirical
    >>>>> evidence for my disagreement.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What really pisses me off is when I see budding artists who are
    >>>>> compliant enough (through admirable humility) to willingly degrade their
    >>>>> art based on the feedback of those who totally missed the point of their
    >>>>> art.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> But, like I said, who the hell am I to make such powerful statements?
    >>>>> It's just my humble opinions at the end of the day.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Don't confuse humility with a lack of self confidence.
    >>>> I try to make it clear, that my comments are only my opinion and the
    >>>> artist should not take them literally, but should merely consider them.
    >>>
    >>> You are replying to September post. If you follow Pete's comments,
    >>> you know he experiences mood swings that range from supportive of
    >>> other people's work to vitriolic attacks on the same people. What he
    >>> thought in September may not be what he'll write about today.
    >>>
    >>> That's Pete. You take him as he is.

    >>
    >> Well, he did reply _during_ September. Is that unusual for a September post?

    >
    > It just appeared today. That is unusual.


    I have that happen occasionally.
     
    Pete A, Feb 15, 2012
    #49
  10. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:58:17 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 2012-02-15 15:08 , tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:37:40 +0000, Pete A
    >> <> wrote:

    >
    >>> Well, he did reply _during_ September. Is that unusual for a September post?

    >>
    >> It just appeared today. That is unusual.

    >
    >You sure? Sometimes I'll temporarily have posts sorted by name or
    >subject and then reply to a post that I think is very recent - only to
    >find it is months old after I reply to it. Mildly embarrassing.


    Agent, the way I have it set up, shows only unread posts. Posts are
    sorted by thread. I don't remember the post from when it appeared in
    September, but I "read" all posts. Reading sometimes means clicking
    it open and then clicking the next one (as with most RichA posts), but
    all posts are opened. This one just appeared today.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Feb 15, 2012
    #50
  11. otter

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:21:15 -0500, tony cooper <>
    wrote:
    : On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:58:17 -0500, Alan Browne
    : <> wrote:
    :
    : >On 2012-02-15 15:08 , tony cooper wrote:
    : >> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:37:40 +0000, Pete A
    : >> <> wrote:
    : >
    : >>> Well, he did reply _during_ September. Is that unusual for a September post?
    : >>
    : >> It just appeared today. That is unusual.
    : >
    : >You sure? Sometimes I'll temporarily have posts sorted by name or
    : >subject and then reply to a post that I think is very recent - only to
    : >find it is months old after I reply to it. Mildly embarrassing.
    :
    : Agent, the way I have it set up, shows only unread posts. Posts are
    : sorted by thread. I don't remember the post from when it appeared in
    : September, but I "read" all posts. Reading sometimes means clicking
    : it open and then clicking the next one (as with most RichA posts), but
    : all posts are opened. This one just appeared today.

    I'm an Agent user too, and here's when I received it:
    X-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 01:12:11 UTC (s05-b11.iad)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Feb 16, 2012
    #51
  12. otter

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:23:53 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 2012-02-15 17:21 , tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:58:17 -0500, Alan Browne
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2012-02-15 15:08 , tony cooper wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:37:40 +0000, Pete A
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Well, he did reply _during_ September. Is that unusual for a September post?
    >>>>
    >>>> It just appeared today. That is unusual.
    >>>
    >>> You sure? Sometimes I'll temporarily have posts sorted by name or
    >>> subject and then reply to a post that I think is very recent - only to
    >>> find it is months old after I reply to it. Mildly embarrassing.

    >>
    >> Agent, the way I have it set up, shows only unread posts. Posts are
    >> sorted by thread. I don't remember the post from when it appeared in
    >> September, but I "read" all posts. Reading sometimes means clicking
    >> it open and then clicking the next one (as with most RichA posts), but
    >> all posts are opened. This one just appeared today.

    >
    >Very odd. Did you examine the full header?


    No. My assumption, in retrospect, is that news.individual.net (my
    news server) belched up the post like the taste of
    day-before-yesterday's curry and mistakenly sent it to Agent (my news
    reader) as "Unread". Or, maybe, sun spots or the Mayans are messing
    with me.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Feb 16, 2012
    #52
  13. otter

    Pete A Guest

    On 2012-02-16 03:28:08 +0000, tony cooper said:

    > On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:23:53 -0500, Alan Browne
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2012-02-15 17:21 , tony cooper wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:58:17 -0500, Alan Browne
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2012-02-15 15:08 , tony cooper wrote:
    >>>>> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:37:40 +0000, Pete A
    >>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Well, he did reply _during_ September. Is that unusual for a September post?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It just appeared today. That is unusual.
    >>>>
    >>>> You sure? Sometimes I'll temporarily have posts sorted by name or
    >>>> subject and then reply to a post that I think is very recent - only to
    >>>> find it is months old after I reply to it. Mildly embarrassing.
    >>>
    >>> Agent, the way I have it set up, shows only unread posts. Posts are
    >>> sorted by thread. I don't remember the post from when it appeared in
    >>> September, but I "read" all posts. Reading sometimes means clicking
    >>> it open and then clicking the next one (as with most RichA posts), but
    >>> all posts are opened. This one just appeared today.

    >>
    >> Very odd. Did you examine the full header?

    >
    > No. My assumption, in retrospect, is that news.individual.net (my
    > news server) belched up the post like the taste of
    > day-before-yesterday's curry and mistakenly sent it to Agent (my news
    > reader) as "Unread". Or, maybe, sun spots or the Mayans are messing
    > with me.


    My news service seems to operate in round robin mode for load
    balancing. This would be fine if the servers were actually in sync, but
    often they are not. Occasionally, one of two things happen:

    1. I get the new headers, but cannot read some of the messages until
    hours later.

    2. I get one or a bunch of headers from years ago.

    To work around it I used to reset all the newsgroups, but that was a
    real pain. Now, I've set a filter to delete everything that's more than
    one month old and have unsubscribed from the high volume
    rec.photo.digital newsgroups.

    Cross-posted messages get really screwed up when the servers are not in
    sync. Examples: a message I've read will reappear as unread; when
    replying, the reader will sneakily remove one of the groups (I think
    this problem was fixed in an update last year).

    Or, as Tony said, it's sun spots or the Mayans. Perhaps I'm emitting
    too many alpha particles or cosmic rays.
     
    Pete A, Feb 16, 2012
    #53
    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:
    271
    PeterN
    Sep 14, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page