Re: New Mandate: The Road Less Travelled, Due July 19th, 2009

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Jun 10, 2009.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Jun 10, 7:43 am, "Bowser" <> wrote:

    >
    > Yeah, it was the only shot I could find in my archives that sort of fit it.
    > Then again, the mandate doesn't *exclude* shots of dirt roads, does it?


    I suspect we'll see more than one of them.
    Annika1980, Jun 10, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Jun 10, 5:09 pm, "Bowser" <> wrote:

    > >I suspect we'll see more than one of them.

    >
    > Hope so. I just live for literal translations of mandates.


    A literal interpretation of this mandate will produce a lot of tired,
    cliched photographs of dirt roads, walking paths, etc..
    The prohibition against archived shots might make this one, "The
    Mandate Less Entered."

    I don't wanna spoil it for ya, but I have good info that Alan Browne
    is currently arranging colored squares on a lightbox in the shape of a
    country road.
    Annika1980, Jun 10, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Annika1980

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:50:31 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >
    >>A literal interpretation of this mandate will produce a lot of tired,
    >>cliched photographs of dirt roads, walking paths, etc..
    >>The prohibition against archived shots might make this one, "The
    >>Mandate Less Entered."

    >
    >Like most of them now...
    >
    >We tried Filters, and got marginal response. Punography, the mandate many
    >considered to be awful, got 11 entries while Filters, something deemed to be
    >easier, got 18. Wow. I'm at a loss as to how to encourage participation,
    >given my time constraints. Aside from making it completely open week to week
    >with no restriction on archive shots, that is...
    >


    I doubt if there is anything you can do to encourage participation.
    There are posters here who are willing to post their photographs and
    be subjected to praise or criticism, and there are posters here who
    are afraid to do so. The latter group includes some posters who
    natter on and on about the techniques of photography, but never post
    their own work to show that they can actually put those techniques
    into practice. They are usually adamant about being right about
    everything, but won't show the pudding.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jun 11, 2009
    #3
  4. "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:50:31 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>
    >>>A literal interpretation of this mandate will produce a lot of tired,
    >>>cliched photographs of dirt roads, walking paths, etc..
    >>>The prohibition against archived shots might make this one, "The
    >>>Mandate Less Entered."

    >>
    >>Like most of them now...
    >>
    >>We tried Filters, and got marginal response. Punography, the mandate many
    >>considered to be awful, got 11 entries while Filters, something deemed to
    >>be
    >>easier, got 18. Wow. I'm at a loss as to how to encourage participation,
    >>given my time constraints. Aside from making it completely open week to
    >>week
    >>with no restriction on archive shots, that is...
    >>

    >
    > I doubt if there is anything you can do to encourage participation.
    > There are posters here who are willing to post their photographs and
    > be subjected to praise or criticism, and there are posters here who
    > are afraid to do so. The latter group includes some posters who
    > natter on and on about the techniques of photography, but never post
    > their own work to show that they can actually put those techniques
    > into practice. They are usually adamant about being right about
    > everything, but won't show the pudding.
    >
    > --
    > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


    I've been surprised by the lack of feedback following shoot-in publication,
    if you look at the number of posts I think you'll find people are happier to
    debate the next mandate title and have a pop at Bowser than they are to
    stick their necks out and either post a photo or post feedback for anyone
    else. Which is a shame really as I think most of us could do with some
    criticism to help us improve (with the exception on Tony Cooper who's photos
    are generally excellent).
    Calvin Sambrook, Jun 11, 2009
    #4
  5. Annika1980

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:36:03 +0100, "Calvin Sambrook"
    <> wrote:

    >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:50:31 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>
    >>>>A literal interpretation of this mandate will produce a lot of tired,
    >>>>cliched photographs of dirt roads, walking paths, etc..
    >>>>The prohibition against archived shots might make this one, "The
    >>>>Mandate Less Entered."
    >>>
    >>>Like most of them now...
    >>>
    >>>We tried Filters, and got marginal response. Punography, the mandate many
    >>>considered to be awful, got 11 entries while Filters, something deemed to
    >>>be
    >>>easier, got 18. Wow. I'm at a loss as to how to encourage participation,
    >>>given my time constraints. Aside from making it completely open week to
    >>>week
    >>>with no restriction on archive shots, that is...
    >>>

    >>
    >> I doubt if there is anything you can do to encourage participation.
    >> There are posters here who are willing to post their photographs and
    >> be subjected to praise or criticism, and there are posters here who
    >> are afraid to do so. The latter group includes some posters who
    >> natter on and on about the techniques of photography, but never post
    >> their own work to show that they can actually put those techniques
    >> into practice. They are usually adamant about being right about
    >> everything, but won't show the pudding.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

    >
    >I've been surprised by the lack of feedback following shoot-in publication,
    >if you look at the number of posts I think you'll find people are happier to
    >debate the next mandate title and have a pop at Bowser than they are to
    >stick their necks out and either post a photo or post feedback for anyone
    >else. Which is a shame really as I think most of us could do with some
    >criticism to help us improve (with the exception on Tony Cooper who's photos
    >are generally excellent).


    I appreciate the compliment and would like to share whatever it is
    that you are smoking.

    I, too, was surprised by the lack of comments. I don't think the idea
    is to critique every photo, but I do think that the good ones should
    be recognized and what misses can be pointed out.

    In a genuine critique, "this photo is not interesting to me" is not
    really a valid comment unless some point is raised about what *would*
    make the photo interesting. However, in this forum, I think "this
    photo is not interesting to me" is a legitimate comment. This is not
    a critique exercise; it's supposed to a fun challenge and that comment
    shows the reaction of our photo to that challenge.

    In a real critique forum, you don't see the "what I was trying to do"
    comments as you do here. Actually, I like reading those comments.
    They give me some insight into what the poster was attempting, and
    make me think about how I would have handled the same attempt.

    I haven't decided whether or not to criticize the coming mandate. If
    I can come up with a photo that meets it, I'll be all for it. If I
    come up dry, I'll blame it on Bowser or Alan.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jun 11, 2009
    #5
  6. "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:36:03 +0100, "Calvin Sambrook"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:50:31 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> I doubt if there is anything you can do to encourage participation.
    >>> There are posters here who are willing to post their photographs and
    >>> be subjected to praise or criticism, and there are posters here who
    >>> are afraid to do so. The latter group includes some posters who
    >>> natter on and on about the techniques of photography, but never post
    >>> their own work to show that they can actually put those techniques
    >>> into practice. They are usually adamant about being right about
    >>> everything, but won't show the pudding.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

    >>
    >>I've been surprised by the lack of feedback following shoot-in
    >>publication,
    >>if you look at the number of posts I think you'll find people are happier
    >>to
    >>debate the next mandate title and have a pop at Bowser than they are to
    >>stick their necks out and either post a photo or post feedback for anyone
    >>else. Which is a shame really as I think most of us could do with some
    >>criticism to help us improve (with the exception on Tony Cooper who's
    >>photos
    >>are generally excellent).

    >
    > I appreciate the compliment and would like to share whatever it is
    > that you are smoking.
    >
    > I, too, was surprised by the lack of comments. I don't think the idea
    > is to critique every photo, but I do think that the good ones should
    > be recognized and what misses can be pointed out.
    >
    > In a genuine critique, "this photo is not interesting to me" is not
    > really a valid comment unless some point is raised about what *would*
    > make the photo interesting. However, in this forum, I think "this
    > photo is not interesting to me" is a legitimate comment. This is not
    > a critique exercise; it's supposed to a fun challenge and that comment
    > shows the reaction of our photo to that challenge.
    >
    > In a real critique forum, you don't see the "what I was trying to do"
    > comments as you do here. Actually, I like reading those comments.
    > They give me some insight into what the poster was attempting, and
    > make me think about how I would have handled the same attempt.
    >
    > I haven't decided whether or not to criticize the coming mandate. If
    > I can come up with a photo that meets it, I'll be all for it. If I
    > come up dry, I'll blame it on Bowser or Alan.
    >
    > --
    > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


    I don't agree with you about the unhelpfulness of "this photo is not
    interesting to me" style comments. Of course I'd prefer someone to tell me
    why they do or don't like my photo but I also realise that sometimes you
    know how you feel but don't understand why. Part of the skill in
    photography is making an image which appeals to the subconscious mind and by
    definition that makes it hard for un-initiated people to identify why they
    react to an image the way they do.

    Perhaps the most obvious and well known example of that would be the "rule
    of thirds". If I shoot a photo which obeys this rule people might well like
    the photo as a result. Most people however have never heard of the rule and
    couldn't be expected to identify it as the reason the photo works.

    There's some interesting psychology experiments from the 1950's and 60's by
    people like Paul Slovic which are thought the show that people's reactions
    always come from the subconscious initially and are then moderated more or
    less effectively by the conscious mind. It is thought that people's stated
    reason for liking or disliking something is almost totally unreliable and is
    pretty much a "manufactured justification" for what they think
    subconsciously. If that's true, and the experiments do carry some weight,
    then it's unreasonable to expect more than "interesting" or "not
    interesting" from people who haven't studied the "rules" of photography.
    Part of the reason I want feedback is to increase my understanding of these
    rules so I can apply them more effectively.
    Calvin Sambrook, Jun 11, 2009
    #6
  7. Annika1980

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:30:12 +0100, "Calvin Sambrook"
    <> wrote:

    >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:36:03 +0100, "Calvin Sambrook"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:50:31 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> I doubt if there is anything you can do to encourage participation.
    >>>> There are posters here who are willing to post their photographs and
    >>>> be subjected to praise or criticism, and there are posters here who
    >>>> are afraid to do so. The latter group includes some posters who
    >>>> natter on and on about the techniques of photography, but never post
    >>>> their own work to show that they can actually put those techniques
    >>>> into practice. They are usually adamant about being right about
    >>>> everything, but won't show the pudding.
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    >>>
    >>>I've been surprised by the lack of feedback following shoot-in
    >>>publication,
    >>>if you look at the number of posts I think you'll find people are happier
    >>>to
    >>>debate the next mandate title and have a pop at Bowser than they are to
    >>>stick their necks out and either post a photo or post feedback for anyone
    >>>else. Which is a shame really as I think most of us could do with some
    >>>criticism to help us improve (with the exception on Tony Cooper who's
    >>>photos
    >>>are generally excellent).

    >>
    >> I appreciate the compliment and would like to share whatever it is
    >> that you are smoking.
    >>
    >> I, too, was surprised by the lack of comments. I don't think the idea
    >> is to critique every photo, but I do think that the good ones should
    >> be recognized and what misses can be pointed out.
    >>
    >> In a genuine critique, "this photo is not interesting to me" is not
    >> really a valid comment unless some point is raised about what *would*
    >> make the photo interesting. However, in this forum, I think "this
    >> photo is not interesting to me" is a legitimate comment. This is not
    >> a critique exercise; it's supposed to a fun challenge and that comment
    >> shows the reaction of our photo to that challenge.

    >
    >I don't agree with you about the unhelpfulness of "this photo is not
    >interesting to me" style comments.


    I hope you took in the full comment including the "unless" part and
    that this pertains to a "genuine critique". To me, a "genuine
    critique" both points out the flaws and offers suggestions of
    improvement.

    I don't really regard the comments here to be a "genuine critique".
    They could be, but there's no understanding or requirement that if you
    comment on a Shoot-In entry that you are providing a critique.

    In a designated critique forum, or in a camera club critique session,
    I expect "genuine critiques"...the good, the bad, and the ugly. Not
    here in a newsgroup, though.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jun 11, 2009
    #7
  8. "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:30:12 +0100, "Calvin Sambrook"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:36:03 +0100, "Calvin Sambrook"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>news:...
    >>>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:50:31 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I doubt if there is anything you can do to encourage participation.
    >>>>> There are posters here who are willing to post their photographs and
    >>>>> be subjected to praise or criticism, and there are posters here who
    >>>>> are afraid to do so. The latter group includes some posters who
    >>>>> natter on and on about the techniques of photography, but never post
    >>>>> their own work to show that they can actually put those techniques
    >>>>> into practice. They are usually adamant about being right about
    >>>>> everything, but won't show the pudding.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    >>>>
    >>>>I've been surprised by the lack of feedback following shoot-in
    >>>>publication,
    >>>>if you look at the number of posts I think you'll find people are
    >>>>happier
    >>>>to
    >>>>debate the next mandate title and have a pop at Bowser than they are to
    >>>>stick their necks out and either post a photo or post feedback for
    >>>>anyone
    >>>>else. Which is a shame really as I think most of us could do with some
    >>>>criticism to help us improve (with the exception on Tony Cooper who's
    >>>>photos
    >>>>are generally excellent).
    >>>
    >>> I appreciate the compliment and would like to share whatever it is
    >>> that you are smoking.
    >>>
    >>> I, too, was surprised by the lack of comments. I don't think the idea
    >>> is to critique every photo, but I do think that the good ones should
    >>> be recognized and what misses can be pointed out.
    >>>
    >>> In a genuine critique, "this photo is not interesting to me" is not
    >>> really a valid comment unless some point is raised about what *would*
    >>> make the photo interesting. However, in this forum, I think "this
    >>> photo is not interesting to me" is a legitimate comment. This is not
    >>> a critique exercise; it's supposed to a fun challenge and that comment
    >>> shows the reaction of our photo to that challenge.

    >>
    >>I don't agree with you about the unhelpfulness of "this photo is not
    >>interesting to me" style comments.

    >
    > I hope you took in the full comment including the "unless" part and
    > that this pertains to a "genuine critique". To me, a "genuine
    > critique" both points out the flaws and offers suggestions of
    > improvement.
    >
    > I don't really regard the comments here to be a "genuine critique".
    > They could be, but there's no understanding or requirement that if you
    > comment on a Shoot-In entry that you are providing a critique.
    >
    > In a designated critique forum, or in a camera club critique session,
    > I expect "genuine critiques"...the good, the bad, and the ugly. Not
    > here in a newsgroup, though.
    >
    > --
    > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


    On re-reading your previous comment I see that I misunderstood. I think we
    are saying the same thing, that "this photo is not interesting to me" is a
    legitimate comment here. It's nice if the poster then goes on the say why
    they think that is or what would make it better but not essential here.

    I'd still like to see more comments though. Good, Bad or Ugly.
    Calvin Sambrook, Jun 11, 2009
    #8
  9. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Jun 11, 5:04 pm, Alan Browne <>
    wrote:
    >
    > I'm having a fit of creative differences brought on by Bret's
    > disclosure.  I might have to get out of the house.


    You still going with that blonde?
    Of course, that might be the Road More Traveled.
    Annika1980, Jun 12, 2009
    #9
  10. Annika1980

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 04:45:25 -0500, Critic <>
    wrote:

    >On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:51:48 -0400, tony cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:50:31 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>
    >>>>A literal interpretation of this mandate will produce a lot of tired,
    >>>>cliched photographs of dirt roads, walking paths, etc..
    >>>>The prohibition against archived shots might make this one, "The
    >>>>Mandate Less Entered."
    >>>
    >>>Like most of them now...
    >>>
    >>>We tried Filters, and got marginal response. Punography, the mandate many
    >>>considered to be awful, got 11 entries while Filters, something deemed to be
    >>>easier, got 18. Wow. I'm at a loss as to how to encourage participation,
    >>>given my time constraints. Aside from making it completely open week to week
    >>>with no restriction on archive shots, that is...
    >>>

    >>
    >>I doubt if there is anything you can do to encourage participation.
    >>There are posters here who are willing to post their photographs and
    >>be subjected to praise or criticism, and there are posters here who
    >>are afraid to do so. The latter group includes some posters who
    >>natter on and on about the techniques of photography, but never post
    >>their own work to show that they can actually put those techniques
    >>into practice. They are usually adamant about being right about
    >>everything, but won't show the pudding.

    >
    >
    >I'll only use my valuable time on critiquing the rare few photographers
    >that might show a hint of prowess, deserving of a bit of apprenticeship.
    >("When the student is ready the teacher will appear.") Otherwise I'm busy
    >creating my own photography. I let the scrapshooters try to drag themselves
    >up by their own bootstraps. They'll figure it out someday--or not.
    >
    >Most likely not, judging by the dreck that is routinely posted for SI.


    I am extremely flattered that you took some of your valuable time and
    read my post. I am practically hugging myself with joy over the fact
    that you've taken even *more* time and crafted an individual reply to
    my post.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jun 12, 2009
    #10
  11. Annika1980

    Bob Larter Guest

    Critic wrote:
    > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:51:48 -0400, tony cooper
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:50:31 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>
    >>>> A literal interpretation of this mandate will produce a lot of tired,
    >>>> cliched photographs of dirt roads, walking paths, etc..
    >>>> The prohibition against archived shots might make this one, "The
    >>>> Mandate Less Entered."
    >>> Like most of them now...
    >>>
    >>> We tried Filters, and got marginal response. Punography, the mandate many
    >>> considered to be awful, got 11 entries while Filters, something deemed to be
    >>> easier, got 18. Wow. I'm at a loss as to how to encourage participation,
    >>> given my time constraints. Aside from making it completely open week to week
    >>> with no restriction on archive shots, that is...
    >>>

    >> I doubt if there is anything you can do to encourage participation.
    >> There are posters here who are willing to post their photographs and
    >> be subjected to praise or criticism, and there are posters here who
    >> are afraid to do so. The latter group includes some posters who
    >> natter on and on about the techniques of photography, but never post
    >> their own work to show that they can actually put those techniques
    >> into practice. They are usually adamant about being right about
    >> everything, but won't show the pudding.

    >
    >
    > I'll only use my valuable time on critiquing the rare few photographers
    > that might show a hint of prowess, deserving of a bit of apprenticeship.
    > ("When the student is ready the teacher will appear.") Otherwise I'm busy
    > creating my own photography.


    None of which you have the courage to show us. Gee, I wonder why?


    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Bob Larter, Jun 13, 2009
    #11
  12. Annika1980

    Bob Larter Guest

    Critic wrote:
    > On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:06:14 -0400, tony cooper
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 04:45:25 -0500, Critic <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:51:48 -0400, tony cooper
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:50:31 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> A literal interpretation of this mandate will produce a lot of tired,
    >>>>>> cliched photographs of dirt roads, walking paths, etc..
    >>>>>> The prohibition against archived shots might make this one, "The
    >>>>>> Mandate Less Entered."
    >>>>> Like most of them now...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> We tried Filters, and got marginal response. Punography, the mandate many
    >>>>> considered to be awful, got 11 entries while Filters, something deemed to be
    >>>>> easier, got 18. Wow. I'm at a loss as to how to encourage participation,
    >>>>> given my time constraints. Aside from making it completely open week to week
    >>>>> with no restriction on archive shots, that is...
    >>>>>
    >>>> I doubt if there is anything you can do to encourage participation.
    >>>> There are posters here who are willing to post their photographs and
    >>>> be subjected to praise or criticism, and there are posters here who
    >>>> are afraid to do so. The latter group includes some posters who
    >>>> natter on and on about the techniques of photography, but never post
    >>>> their own work to show that they can actually put those techniques
    >>>> into practice. They are usually adamant about being right about
    >>>> everything, but won't show the pudding.
    >>>
    >>> I'll only use my valuable time on critiquing the rare few photographers
    >>> that might show a hint of prowess, deserving of a bit of apprenticeship.
    >>> ("When the student is ready the teacher will appear.") Otherwise I'm busy
    >>> creating my own photography. I let the scrapshooters try to drag themselves
    >>> up by their own bootstraps. They'll figure it out someday--or not.
    >>>
    >>> Most likely not, judging by the dreck that is routinely posted for SI.

    >> I am extremely flattered that you took some of your valuable time and
    >> read my post. I am practically hugging myself with joy over the fact
    >> that you've taken even *more* time and crafted an individual reply to
    >> my post.

    >
    > Finally. One of the multitudes of crapshooter internet-cretins that knows
    > their real position in life. About time. You show promise by this alone,
    > little of it, but little is better than none.


    *Whooosh!*

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Bob Larter, Jun 13, 2009
    #12
  13. Annika1980

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:07:30 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980 <>
    wrote:
    : On Jun 10, 5:09 pm, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    :
    : > >I suspect we'll see more than one of them.
    : >
    : > Hope so. I just live for literal translations of mandates.
    :
    : A literal interpretation of this mandate will produce a lot of tired,
    : cliched photographs of dirt roads, walking paths, etc..
    : The prohibition against archived shots might make this one, "The
    : Mandate Less Entered."

    I read the enjoinder against archive shots as more a plea than a prohibition
    and intend to treat my interpretation as definitive. ;^) But I'll submit some
    new stuff too. (I've already taken one picture and have plans for two more,
    although I'll need the weather to cooperate for one of them.)

    All else equal, new shots are probably better than archive shots, if for no
    other reason than that they tend to match the mandates better. But in this
    case, given the (arguably justifiable) denigration of clichés, I agree with
    Bret that you may not be able to have it both ways.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jun 20, 2009
    #13
  14. Annika1980

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:36:03 +0100, "Calvin Sambrook" <>
    wrote:
    : "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    : news:...
    : > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:50:31 -0400, "Bowser" <> wrote:
    : >
    : >>
    : >>"Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    : >>news:...
    : >>
    : >>>A literal interpretation of this mandate will produce a lot of tired,
    : >>>cliched photographs of dirt roads, walking paths, etc..
    : >>>The prohibition against archived shots might make this one, "The
    : >>>Mandate Less Entered."
    : >>
    : >>Like most of them now...
    : >>
    : >>We tried Filters, and got marginal response. Punography, the mandate many
    : >>considered to be awful, got 11 entries while Filters, something deemed to
    : >>be
    : >>easier, got 18. Wow. I'm at a loss as to how to encourage participation,
    : >>given my time constraints. Aside from making it completely open week to
    : >>week
    : >>with no restriction on archive shots, that is...
    : >>
    : >
    : > I doubt if there is anything you can do to encourage participation.
    : > There are posters here who are willing to post their photographs and
    : > be subjected to praise or criticism, and there are posters here who
    : > are afraid to do so. The latter group includes some posters who
    : > natter on and on about the techniques of photography, but never post
    : > their own work to show that they can actually put those techniques
    : > into practice. They are usually adamant about being right about
    : > everything, but won't show the pudding.

    The answer (obviously?) is not to make it unnecessarily difficult for those
    who are willing to enter to do so.

    : I've been surprised by the lack of feedback following shoot-in publication,
    : if you look at the number of posts I think you'll find people are happier to
    : debate the next mandate title and have a pop at Bowser than they are to
    : stick their necks out and either post a photo or post feedback for anyone
    : else. Which is a shame really as I think most of us could do with some
    : criticism to help us improve (with the exception on Tony Cooper who's photos
    : are generally excellent).

    I've posted comments on several of the mandates, but haven't done so lately,
    mainly because I haven't had time to submit photos and don't want to criticize
    when I haven't entered. (Although there were at least two months when pictures
    I submitted didn't make it into the show. They weren't good enough to make an
    issue of, so I didn't.) Both my wife and I do plan to enter this time, and
    I'll try to post comments.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jun 20, 2009
    #14
    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. bowzer

    Re: [SI] New Mandate: Close Up, Due April 5th, 2009

    bowzer, Mar 16, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    352
    bowzer
    Mar 18, 2009
  2. Paul Furman

    Re: [SI] Hit the road; "The Road Less Travelled" is up!

    Paul Furman, Jul 20, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    328
    Paul Furman
    Jul 20, 2009
  3. Robert Coe

    Re: [SI] Next up: Night Shots, due December 19th, 2010

    Robert Coe, Nov 24, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    748
    peter
    Nov 28, 2010
  4. Robert Coe
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    375
    Robert Coe
    Jun 26, 2011
  5. PeterN

    Re: [SI] Mandate reminder: "S" is due July 24th.

    PeterN, Jul 19, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    266
    Robert Coe
    Jul 22, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page