Re: [SI] Call for mandates

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Calvin Sambrook, Jan 29, 2010.

  1. "Bowser" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I have one idea: Facescape-find a face with a lot of character and
    > shoot it in excrutiating detail, up cose. No points for beauty, lots
    > of points for character.
    >
    > Any other ideas?


    Bowser, have you decided on the mandate yet? My replacement camera's turned
    up and I want something to shoot at.
    Calvin Sambrook, Jan 29, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Calvin Sambrook

    Bruce Guest

    On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:10:19 -0000, "Calvin Sambrook"
    <> wrote:

    >"Bowser" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>I have one idea: Facescape-find a face with a lot of character and
    >> shoot it in excrutiating detail, up cose. No points for beauty, lots
    >> of points for character.
    >>
    >> Any other ideas?

    >
    >Bowser, have you decided on the mandate yet? My replacement camera's turned
    >up and I want something to shoot at.



    Just shoot anything you want. Don't worry about the mandate, because
    the person running the SI clearly doesn't.

    The last SI had several entries that quite clearly did not comply with
    the mandate, but they were still allowed.
    Bruce, Jan 29, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Calvin Sambrook

    sheesh Guest

    On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:10:19 -0000, "Calvin Sambrook"
    <> wrote:

    >"Bowser" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>I have one idea: Facescape-find a face with a lot of character and
    >> shoot it in excrutiating detail, up cose. No points for beauty, lots
    >> of points for character.
    >>
    >> Any other ideas?

    >
    >Bowser, have you decided on the mandate yet? My replacement camera's turned
    >up and I want something to shoot at.


    You need someone else to give you ideas for a reason to use a camera?

    Return your replacement and any other cameras you might have. Put them in
    the hands of someone who can make use of them. You know, people who can
    think for themselves.
    sheesh, Jan 29, 2010
    #3
  4. Calvin Sambrook

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:29:03 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    : On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:10:19 -0000, "Calvin Sambrook"
    : <> wrote:
    :
    : >"Bowser" <> wrote in message
    : >news:...
    : >>I have one idea: Facescape-find a face with a lot of character and
    : >> shoot it in excrutiating detail, up cose. No points for beauty, lots
    : >> of points for character.
    : >>
    : >> Any other ideas?
    : >
    : >Bowser, have you decided on the mandate yet? My replacement camera's turned
    : >up and I want something to shoot at.
    :
    :
    : Just shoot anything you want. Don't worry about the mandate, because
    : the person running the SI clearly doesn't.
    :
    : The last SI had several entries that quite clearly did not comply with
    : the mandate, but they were still allowed.

    And you would know that how? None of us believes that you actually looked at
    the SI pictures or that you would know what to look for if you did.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jan 29, 2010
    #4
  5. Calvin Sambrook

    Bruce Guest

    On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:23:05 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:29:03 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    >: Just shoot anything you want. Don't worry about the mandate, because
    >: the person running the SI clearly doesn't.
    >:
    >: The last SI had several entries that quite clearly did not comply with
    >: the mandate, but they were still allowed.
    >
    >And you would know that how? None of us believes



    Please don't waste your time thinking that I care what you believe.

    The last mandate was as easy as could be. A very simple requirement
    for a focal length that gave the same angle of view as a 50mm lens on
    a 35mm film camera, or a full frame DSLR.

    Yet several people who submitted images either did not understand that
    very simple requirement, or simply didn't care.

    The SI submissions represent the very worst of photography by people
    who don't even understand the basics. As a result, they are extremely
    funny. ;-)
    Bruce, Jan 29, 2010
    #5
  6. Calvin Sambrook

    Tim Conway Guest

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:23:05 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >>On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:29:03 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>: Just shoot anything you want. Don't worry about the mandate, because
    >>: the person running the SI clearly doesn't.
    >>:
    >>: The last SI had several entries that quite clearly did not comply with
    >>: the mandate, but they were still allowed.
    >>
    >>And you would know that how? None of us believes

    >
    >
    > Please don't waste your time thinking that I care what you believe.
    >
    > The last mandate was as easy as could be. A very simple requirement
    > for a focal length that gave the same angle of view as a 50mm lens on
    > a 35mm film camera, or a full frame DSLR.
    >
    > Yet several people who submitted images either did not understand that
    > very simple requirement, or simply didn't care.
    >
    > The SI submissions represent the very worst of photography by people
    > who don't even understand the basics. As a result, they are extremely
    > funny. ;-)


    Your constant belittling is representing the worst of usenet.
    Tim Conway, Jan 29, 2010
    #6
  7. Calvin Sambrook

    Bruce Guest

    On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:42:05 -0500, "Tim Conway"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:23:05 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >>>On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:29:03 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>>: Just shoot anything you want. Don't worry about the mandate, because
    >>>: the person running the SI clearly doesn't.
    >>>:
    >>>: The last SI had several entries that quite clearly did not comply with
    >>>: the mandate, but they were still allowed.
    >>>
    >>>And you would know that how? None of us believes

    >>
    >>
    >> Please don't waste your time thinking that I care what you believe.
    >>
    >> The last mandate was as easy as could be. A very simple requirement
    >> for a focal length that gave the same angle of view as a 50mm lens on
    >> a 35mm film camera, or a full frame DSLR.
    >>
    >> Yet several people who submitted images either did not understand that
    >> very simple requirement, or simply didn't care.
    >>
    >> The SI submissions represent the very worst of photography by people
    >> who don't even understand the basics. As a result, they are extremely
    >> funny. ;-)

    >
    >Your constant belittling is representing the worst of usenet.



    Don't be silly, there is far worse to be found.

    I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
    actually a gross insult to capable photographers.
    Bruce, Jan 29, 2010
    #7
  8. Bruce wrote:
    > On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:42:05 -0500, "Tim Conway"


    >> Your constant belittling is representing the worst of usenet.

    >
    >
    > Don't be silly, there is far worse to be found.
    >
    > I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
    > actually a gross insult to capable photographers.


    Then you can start changing that by:

    A. Posting your own superior images;
    B. Providing solid (not merely insulting) feedback/critique of other's
    pathetic photos .

    As if.

    --
    lsmft
    John McWilliams, Jan 29, 2010
    #8
  9. Calvin Sambrook

    Tim Conway Guest

    "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:hjv31s$1jk$-september.org...
    > Bruce wrote:
    >> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:42:05 -0500, "Tim Conway"

    >
    >>> Your constant belittling is representing the worst of usenet.

    >>
    >>
    >> Don't be silly, there is far worse to be found. I'm really being very
    >> gentle here, because the execrable SI is
    >> actually a gross insult to capable photographers.

    >
    > Then you can start changing that by:
    >
    > A. Posting your own superior images;
    > B. Providing solid (not merely insulting) feedback/critique of other's
    > pathetic photos .
    >
    > As if.


    Hey, are you callin' my photos pathetic?
    ....just joking, some of them are. <grin>
    Tim Conway, Jan 29, 2010
    #9
  10. Calvin Sambrook

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce <>
    wrote:

    >On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:42:05 -0500, "Tim Conway"
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:23:05 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >>>>On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:29:03 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>>>: Just shoot anything you want. Don't worry about the mandate, because
    >>>>: the person running the SI clearly doesn't.
    >>>>:
    >>>>: The last SI had several entries that quite clearly did not comply with
    >>>>: the mandate, but they were still allowed.
    >>>>
    >>>>And you would know that how? None of us believes
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Please don't waste your time thinking that I care what you believe.
    >>>
    >>> The last mandate was as easy as could be. A very simple requirement
    >>> for a focal length that gave the same angle of view as a 50mm lens on
    >>> a 35mm film camera, or a full frame DSLR.
    >>>
    >>> Yet several people who submitted images either did not understand that
    >>> very simple requirement, or simply didn't care.
    >>>
    >>> The SI submissions represent the very worst of photography by people
    >>> who don't even understand the basics. As a result, they are extremely
    >>> funny. ;-)

    >>
    >>Your constant belittling is representing the worst of usenet.

    >
    >
    >Don't be silly, there is far worse to be found.
    >
    >I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
    >actually a gross insult to capable photographers.


    Your opinion would carry more weight if we knew - from seeing your
    work - that you are one of the capable photographers.

    I don't think you necessarily need to be a capable photographer to
    effectively critique photographs. You don't need to be artist to
    judge that a painting is badly done. You don't need to be a published
    author to know that a story is badly written. You don't need to be a
    good photographer to see that a specific photo is badly composed.

    However, when you make only broad-brush statements that all of the SI
    stuff is excrement, you really have to establish your own credentials
    to be taken seriously.



    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jan 29, 2010
    #10
  11. "Alan Browne" <> wrote:

    > That's the heart of the matter with "Bruce". He is terrified of
    > showing his images. Probably for good reason. Whereas we don't
    > mind the slings and arrows of others.


    You assume he records any images at all, which is not in evidence.
    I can't say I like it when my shots get panned, but it's a price
    I'm sometimes willing to pay.

    --
    Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
    Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
    everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain
    Michael Benveniste, Feb 1, 2010
    #11
  12. Calvin Sambrook

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    : On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:42:05 -0500, "Tim Conway"
    : <> wrote:
    :
    : >
    : >"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    : >news:...
    : >> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:23:05 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    : >>>On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:29:03 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    : >>>: Just shoot anything you want. Don't worry about the mandate, because
    : >>>: the person running the SI clearly doesn't.
    : >>>:
    : >>>: The last SI had several entries that quite clearly did not comply with
    : >>>: the mandate, but they were still allowed.
    : >>>
    : >>>And you would know that how? None of us believes
    : >>
    : >>
    : >> Please don't waste your time thinking that I care what you believe.
    : >>
    : >> The last mandate was as easy as could be. A very simple requirement
    : >> for a focal length that gave the same angle of view as a 50mm lens on
    : >> a 35mm film camera, or a full frame DSLR.
    : >>
    : >> Yet several people who submitted images either did not understand that
    : >> very simple requirement, or simply didn't care.
    : >>
    : >> The SI submissions represent the very worst of photography by people
    : >> who don't even understand the basics. As a result, they are extremely
    : >> funny. ;-)
    : >
    : >Your constant belittling is representing the worst of usenet.
    :
    :
    : Don't be silly, there is far worse to be found.
    :
    : I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
    : actually a gross insult to capable photographers.

    You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who think
    they've been insulted?

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Feb 2, 2010
    #12
  13. Calvin Sambrook

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:17:57 -0600, sheesh <> wrote:
    : On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:10:19 -0000, "Calvin Sambrook"
    : <> wrote:
    :
    : >"Bowser" <> wrote in message
    : >news:...
    : >>I have one idea: Facescape-find a face with a lot of character and
    : >> shoot it in excrutiating detail, up cose. No points for beauty, lots
    : >> of points for character.
    : >>
    : >> Any other ideas?
    : >
    : >Bowser, have you decided on the mandate yet? My replacement camera's turned
    : >up and I want something to shoot at.
    :
    : You need someone else to give you ideas for a reason to use a camera?
    :
    : Return your replacement and any other cameras you might have. Put them in
    : the hands of someone who can make use of them. You know, people who can
    : think for themselves.

    How many humorless gas bags do we need in this newsgroup? They keep coming out
    of the woodwork like termites.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Feb 2, 2010
    #13
  14. Calvin Sambrook

    Bruce Guest

    On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:44:53 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    >:
    >: I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
    >: actually a gross insult to capable photographers.
    >
    >You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who think
    >they've been insulted?



    There is quite a long list of capable photographers who participated
    in the early days of the SI. They left both the SI and the SI's
    sponsoring newsgroup, never to return.

    You should hear what they think of the SI, and particularly of Alan
    Browne's contributions! If you think I am overly critical, their
    comments make mine look very gentle indeed.
    Bruce, Feb 3, 2010
    #14
  15. Bruce wrote:
    > On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:44:53 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> :
    >> : I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
    >> : actually a gross insult to capable photographers.
    >>
    >> You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who think
    >> they've been insulted?

    >
    >
    > There is quite a long list of capable photographers who participated
    > in the early days of the SI. They left both the SI and the SI's
    > sponsoring newsgroup, never to return.


    All kinds of capable photogs have left NGs right and left, as well as
    canning usenet altogether.

    > You should hear what they think of the SI, and particularly of Alan
    > Browne's contributions! If you think I am overly critical, their
    > comments make mine look very gentle indeed.


    You and Alan. Sheesh. One of you eventually *could* stfu about each other.

    In the meantime, you did not address the question. Not close.

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Feb 3, 2010
    #15
  16. Calvin Sambrook

    Tim Conway Guest

    "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:hkc84g$71f$-september.org...
    > Bruce wrote:
    >> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:44:53 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>> : : I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
    >>> : actually a gross insult to capable photographers.
    >>>
    >>> You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who think
    >>> they've been insulted?

    >>
    >>
    >> There is quite a long list of capable photographers who participated
    >> in the early days of the SI. They left both the SI and the SI's
    >> sponsoring newsgroup, never to return.

    >
    > All kinds of capable photogs have left NGs right and left, as well as
    > canning usenet altogether.
    >
    >> You should hear what they think of the SI, and particularly of Alan
    >> Browne's contributions! If you think I am overly critical, their
    >> comments make mine look very gentle indeed.

    >
    > You and Alan. Sheesh. One of you eventually *could* stfu about each other.
    >
    > In the meantime, you did not address the question. Not close.


    All that whining and complaining they do sounds like just sour grapes to me.
    Look at all the constructive things they could do if they weren't being so
    negative.
    Tim Conway, Feb 3, 2010
    #16
  17. Calvin Sambrook

    Bruce Guest

    On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 12:00:22 -0500, "Tim Conway"
    <> wrote:
    >
    >All that whining and complaining they do sounds like just sour grapes to me.
    >Look at all the constructive things they could do if they weren't being so
    >negative.



    The constructive things they could do?

    Such as working as photographers? Over half of them do.

    The rest are serious amateurs who have worked very hard to improve,
    and most if not all of those now sell their work via exhibitions,
    their own web sites, or stock agencies.

    What unifies them as a group is a desire to improve by sharing, honest
    critique and constructive criticism. The last two are completely
    absent from the SI, where the participants automatically offer their
    warm congratulations for the latest round of appallingly incompetent
    snapshots.

    The SI hit a nadir when several participants completely failed to
    understand the simplest of mandates. But their snapshots were still
    included, because no-one takes the mandates seriously.

    Anyone who takes a few minutes to look at SIs over the years can see
    how overall standards have plummeted, and how those few who have
    participated throughout have shown no improvement whatsoever, in some
    cases actually getting worse.

    http://www.pbase.com/shootin/root
    Bruce, Feb 3, 2010
    #17
  18. Calvin Sambrook

    G. Browne Guest

    On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:26:55 -0800, John McWilliams <>
    wrote:

    >Bruce wrote:
    >> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:44:53 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>> :
    >>> : I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
    >>> : actually a gross insult to capable photographers.
    >>>
    >>> You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who think
    >>> they've been insulted?

    >>
    >>
    >> There is quite a long list of capable photographers who participated
    >> in the early days of the SI. They left both the SI and the SI's
    >> sponsoring newsgroup, never to return.

    >
    >All kinds of capable photogs have left NGs right and left, as well as
    >canning usenet altogether.


    All thanks to pretend-photographer trolls like you.
    G. Browne, Feb 3, 2010
    #18
  19. Calvin Sambrook

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:26:55 -0800, John McWilliams
    <> wrote:

    >Bruce wrote:
    >> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:44:53 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>> :
    >>> : I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
    >>> : actually a gross insult to capable photographers.
    >>>
    >>> You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who think
    >>> they've been insulted?

    >>
    >>
    >> There is quite a long list of capable photographers who participated
    >> in the early days of the SI. They left both the SI and the SI's
    >> sponsoring newsgroup, never to return.

    >
    >All kinds of capable photogs have left NGs right and left, as well as
    >canning usenet altogether.


    Some of which, undoubtedly, left due to a severe case of death.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Feb 3, 2010
    #19
  20. Calvin Sambrook

    Tim Conway Guest

    "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:26:55 -0800, John McWilliams
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Bruce wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:44:53 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>> :
    >>>> : I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
    >>>> : actually a gross insult to capable photographers.
    >>>>
    >>>> You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who
    >>>> think
    >>>> they've been insulted?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> There is quite a long list of capable photographers who participated
    >>> in the early days of the SI. They left both the SI and the SI's
    >>> sponsoring newsgroup, never to return.

    >>
    >>All kinds of capable photogs have left NGs right and left, as well as
    >>canning usenet altogether.

    >
    > Some of which, undoubtedly, left due to a severe case of death.
    >
    >

    Oh well, that tends to dwindle the numbers down a bit and not too much can
    be done about that - at least until the resurrection. ;-)
    Tim Conway, Feb 3, 2010
    #20
    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. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    751
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  2. Bruce

    Re: [SI] Call for mandates

    Bruce, Jan 19, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    292
    Robert Coe
    Jan 22, 2010
  3. Richard

    Re: [SI] Call for mandates

    Richard, Jan 2, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    220
    John A.
    Jan 8, 2011
  4. otter

    Re: Call for mandates

    otter, Jan 3, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    260
    otter
    Jan 4, 2011
  5. John A.

    Re: [SI] Call for mandates

    John A., Jan 5, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    269
    Whisky-dave
    Jan 5, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page