Re: [SI] New Mandates

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bruce, Feb 6, 2010.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:08:05 -0500, Bowser <> wrote:
    >On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:42:55 -0500, tony cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >>
    >>Has Bruce approved of these mandates?

    >
    >Yes. Bruce and I met and discussed these mandates at length. After
    >several marathon sessions with heated arguments lasting countless
    >hours on end, Bruce and I finally agreed on the mandates and capture
    >dates. The duration of these sessions is why the mandates were late in
    >coming.



    ROTFL!!!

    My approval was only reluctantly given, on the basis of a solemn
    promise by Bowser that any entries that did not conform to the
    requirements of the mandate would not be allowed.

    Isn't that right, Bowser? After all, we wouldn't want another
    embarrassing fiasco like the last time, now would we?
     
    Bruce, Feb 6, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bruce wrote:
    > On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:08:05 -0500, Bowser <> wrote:
    >> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:42:55 -0500, tony cooper
    >> <> wrote:
    >>> Has Bruce approved of these mandates?

    >> Yes. Bruce and I met and discussed these mandates at length. After
    >> several marathon sessions with heated arguments lasting countless
    >> hours on end, Bruce and I finally agreed on the mandates and capture
    >> dates. The duration of these sessions is why the mandates were late in
    >> coming.

    >
    >
    > ROTFL!!!
    >
    > My approval was only reluctantly given, on the basis of a solemn
    > promise by Bowser that any entries that did not conform to the
    > requirements of the mandate would not be allowed.
    >
    > Isn't that right, Bowser? After all, we wouldn't want another
    > embarrassing fiasco like the last time, now would we?


    Bruce-

    I truly do hope you'll submit some stuff this time. Then maybe we can
    get Alan to shut up about all the past shit he brings up - let's let the
    past stay there.

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Feb 6, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bruce

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 08:36:24 -0800, John McWilliams
    <> wrote:

    >Bruce wrote:
    >> On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:08:05 -0500, Bowser <> wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:42:55 -0500, tony cooper
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>> Has Bruce approved of these mandates?
    >>> Yes. Bruce and I met and discussed these mandates at length. After
    >>> several marathon sessions with heated arguments lasting countless
    >>> hours on end, Bruce and I finally agreed on the mandates and capture
    >>> dates. The duration of these sessions is why the mandates were late in
    >>> coming.

    >>
    >>
    >> ROTFL!!!
    >>
    >> My approval was only reluctantly given, on the basis of a solemn
    >> promise by Bowser that any entries that did not conform to the
    >> requirements of the mandate would not be allowed.
    >>
    >> Isn't that right, Bowser? After all, we wouldn't want another
    >> embarrassing fiasco like the last time, now would we?

    >
    >Bruce-
    >
    >I truly do hope you'll submit some stuff this time. Then maybe we can
    >get Alan to shut up about all the past shit he brings up - let's let the
    >past stay there.


    I really don't care if Bruce submits anything. And, I don't expect
    him to. He's put himself out on a limb in the newsgroups, and
    allowing us to judge an image of his would be the saw.

    What I would like to see is how Bruce would critique the photos he
    thinks are crap. I'd like to see how he thinks this one should be
    cropped better, how that one should have been shot at a higher or
    lower f/stop, or how one could have been better composed. It would be
    interesting to see if he actually has an eye for photos.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Feb 6, 2010
    #3
  4. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 16:38:19 -0500, Bowser <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:24:11 +0000, Bruce <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:08:05 -0500, Bowser <> wrote:
    >>>On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:42:55 -0500, tony cooper
    >>><> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>Has Bruce approved of these mandates?
    >>>
    >>>Yes. Bruce and I met and discussed these mandates at length. After
    >>>several marathon sessions with heated arguments lasting countless
    >>>hours on end, Bruce and I finally agreed on the mandates and capture
    >>>dates. The duration of these sessions is why the mandates were late in
    >>>coming.

    >>
    >>
    >>ROTFL!!!
    >>
    >>My approval was only reluctantly given, on the basis of a solemn
    >>promise by Bowser that any entries that did not conform to the
    >>requirements of the mandate would not be allowed.
    >>
    >>Isn't that right, Bowser? After all, we wouldn't want another
    >>embarrassing fiasco like the last time, now would we?

    >
    >I thought we discussed this at our committee meeting? Only those that
    >submit get to complain, correct?



    When it comes to evading the issue of the entries that don't comply
    with the mandate, you are the ultimate professional. Obviously, you
    were a very good choice to run the SI.

    So if people can routinely submit entries that don't comply with the
    mandate in one or more major respects, and we still see them on the
    SI, why bother with the mandates at all?

    I don't expect you to answer that one either. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Feb 6, 2010
    #4
  5. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 15:51:03 -0800, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >Bowser has taken on the running of SI for the enjoyment of those who
    >participate, not to receive the scorn of somebody such as you who
    >chooses not to. It seems we should be grateful he does what nobody else
    >cares to.



    Yes, you should be grateful that the person running the SI is just
    another in a long list of people who have been completely dedicated to
    maintaining the SI's near-rock bottom standards, and taking whatever
    opportunities arise to make them even lower.
     
    Bruce, Feb 7, 2010
    #5
  6. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:08:17 -0500, Bowser <> wrote:
    >
    >However, if you are the type of shooter
    >who must slavishly follow a pre-set visual definition, then the
    >shoot-in is not for you.



    Except when shooting for stock, my work follows a brief that is set
    by, or agreed with the client. If I don't work within the brief, I
    won't get paid. And since the majority of my income comes from repeat
    customers, referrals and recommendations, my business would rapidly go
    downhill.

    You might ask what relevance that has to the SI. Well, when the SI
    started, the intention was that people submitting images to the SI
    would also work to a brief. The idea was to make the experience
    similar to that of a professional, in order to stretch people and help
    them to improve. Laudable aims.

    The problem was the "brief" became a "mandate". Now the word
    "mandate" means an order, or a decree. It suggests a lot less
    flexibility than a brief. In other words, it is even more strict.

    However, those running the SI and submitting images to it took it to
    mean quite the opposite, something far more relaxed than a brief. A
    theme perhaps.

    But even that is routinely ignored, and people submit any crappy old
    snapshot whether it relates to the mandate or not. As a result, the
    SI's standards get lower and lower. Anyone with any ability takes it
    elsewhere and leaves the job of plumbing the depths of mediocrity to
    those who are left behind, who have absolutely no interest in
    self-improvement.

    Why on earth would any competent photographer wish to waste their time
    participating in such a complete mess?
     
    Bruce, Feb 7, 2010
    #6
  7. Bruce wrote:
    > On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:08:17 -0500, Bowser <> wrote:
    >> However, if you are the type of shooter
    >> who must slavishly follow a pre-set visual definition, then the
    >> shoot-in is not for you.

    >
    >
    > Except when shooting for stock, my work follows a brief that is set
    > by, or agreed with the client. If I don't work within the brief, I
    > won't get paid. And since the majority of my income comes from repeat
    > customers, referrals and recommendations, my business would rapidly go
    > downhill.
    >
    > You might ask what relevance that has to the SI. Well, when the SI
    > started, the intention was that people submitting images to the SI
    > would also work to a brief. The idea was to make the experience
    > similar to that of a professional, in order to stretch people and help
    > them to improve. Laudable aims.
    >
    > The problem was the "brief" became a "mandate". Now the word
    > "mandate" means an order, or a decree. It suggests a lot less
    > flexibility than a brief. In other words, it is even more strict.
    >
    > However, those running the SI and submitting images to it took it to
    > mean quite the opposite, something far more relaxed than a brief. A
    > theme perhaps.
    >
    > But even that is routinely ignored, and people submit any crappy old
    > snapshot whether it relates to the mandate or not. As a result, the
    > SI's standards get lower and lower. Anyone with any ability takes it
    > elsewhere and leaves the job of plumbing the depths of mediocrity to
    > those who are left behind, who have absolutely no interest in
    > self-improvement.
    >
    > Why on earth would any competent photographer wish to waste their time
    > participating in such a complete mess?


    To educate and illuminate the great unwashed.
    But thank you for the good overview.

    ==
    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Feb 7, 2010
    #7
  8. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 10:13:12 -0800, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >On 2010-02-07 09:29:09 -0800, Bruce <> said:
    >
    >> On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 15:51:03 -0800, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Bowser has taken on the running of SI for the enjoyment of those who
    >>> participate, not to receive the scorn of somebody such as you who
    >>> chooses not to. It seems we should be grateful he does what nobody else
    >>> cares to.

    >>
    >>
    >> Yes, you should be grateful that the person running the SI is just
    >> another in a long list of people who have been completely dedicated to
    >> maintaining the SI's near-rock bottom standards, and taking whatever
    >> opportunities arise to make them even lower.

    >
    >What standards?



    My point, exactly. There aren't any.
     
    Bruce, Feb 7, 2010
    #8
  9. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:08:17 -0500, Bowser <> wrote:
    >>
    >>However, if you are the type of shooter
    >>who must slavishly follow a pre-set visual definition, then the
    >>shoot-in is not for you.

    >
    >
    > Except when shooting for stock, my work follows a brief that is set
    > by, or agreed with the client. If I don't work within the brief, I
    > won't get paid. And since the majority of my income comes from repeat
    > customers, referrals and recommendations, my business would rapidly go
    > downhill.
    >
    > You might ask what relevance that has to the SI. Well, when the SI
    > started, the intention was that people submitting images to the SI
    > would also work to a brief. The idea was to make the experience
    > similar to that of a professional, in order to stretch people and help
    > them to improve. Laudable aims.
    >
    > The problem was the "brief" became a "mandate". Now the word
    > "mandate" means an order, or a decree. It suggests a lot less
    > flexibility than a brief. In other words, it is even more strict.
    >
    > However, those running the SI and submitting images to it took it to
    > mean quite the opposite, something far more relaxed than a brief. A
    > theme perhaps.
    >
    > But even that is routinely ignored, and people submit any crappy old
    > snapshot whether it relates to the mandate or not. As a result, the
    > SI's standards get lower and lower. Anyone with any ability takes it
    > elsewhere and leaves the job of plumbing the depths of mediocrity to
    > those who are left behind, who have absolutely no interest in
    > self-improvement.
    >
    > Why on earth would any competent photographer wish to waste their time
    > participating in such a complete mess?
    >
    >



    Since you are so competent why don't you give us a link to you stock photos,
    so that we may all learn and practice the self improvement you talk about.
    ..
    Better yet, do you have a web page we can learn from?

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 7, 2010
    #9
  10. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:03:37 -0500, "Peter"
    <> wrote:

    >"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:08:17 -0500, Bowser <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>However, if you are the type of shooter
    >>>who must slavishly follow a pre-set visual definition, then the
    >>>shoot-in is not for you.

    >>
    >>
    >> Except when shooting for stock, my work follows a brief that is set
    >> by, or agreed with the client. If I don't work within the brief, I
    >> won't get paid. And since the majority of my income comes from repeat
    >> customers, referrals and recommendations, my business would rapidly go
    >> downhill.
    >>
    >> You might ask what relevance that has to the SI. Well, when the SI
    >> started, the intention was that people submitting images to the SI
    >> would also work to a brief. The idea was to make the experience
    >> similar to that of a professional, in order to stretch people and help
    >> them to improve. Laudable aims.
    >>
    >> The problem was the "brief" became a "mandate". Now the word
    >> "mandate" means an order, or a decree. It suggests a lot less
    >> flexibility than a brief. In other words, it is even more strict.
    >>
    >> However, those running the SI and submitting images to it took it to
    >> mean quite the opposite, something far more relaxed than a brief. A
    >> theme perhaps.
    >>
    >> But even that is routinely ignored, and people submit any crappy old
    >> snapshot whether it relates to the mandate or not. As a result, the
    >> SI's standards get lower and lower. Anyone with any ability takes it
    >> elsewhere and leaves the job of plumbing the depths of mediocrity to
    >> those who are left behind, who have absolutely no interest in
    >> self-improvement.
    >>
    >> Why on earth would any competent photographer wish to waste their time
    >> participating in such a complete mess?
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    >Since you are so competent



    I make no claims of competence. None.


    >why don't you give us a link to you stock photos,
    >so that we may all learn and practice the self improvement you talk about.



    Anyone who has a genuine interest in the subjects I shoot will have
    absolutely no problem finding them.


    >Better yet, do you have a web page we can learn from?



    I have several web pages. Anyone who has a genuine interest in the
    subjects I shoot will have absolutely no problem finding them.
     
    Bruce, Feb 7, 2010
    #10
  11. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:03:37 -0500, "Peter"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:08:17 -0500, Bowser <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>However, if you are the type of shooter
    >>>>who must slavishly follow a pre-set visual definition, then the
    >>>>shoot-in is not for you.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Except when shooting for stock, my work follows a brief that is set
    >>> by, or agreed with the client. If I don't work within the brief, I
    >>> won't get paid. And since the majority of my income comes from repeat
    >>> customers, referrals and recommendations, my business would rapidly go
    >>> downhill.
    >>>
    >>> You might ask what relevance that has to the SI. Well, when the SI
    >>> started, the intention was that people submitting images to the SI
    >>> would also work to a brief. The idea was to make the experience
    >>> similar to that of a professional, in order to stretch people and help
    >>> them to improve. Laudable aims.
    >>>
    >>> The problem was the "brief" became a "mandate". Now the word
    >>> "mandate" means an order, or a decree. It suggests a lot less
    >>> flexibility than a brief. In other words, it is even more strict.
    >>>
    >>> However, those running the SI and submitting images to it took it to
    >>> mean quite the opposite, something far more relaxed than a brief. A
    >>> theme perhaps.
    >>>
    >>> But even that is routinely ignored, and people submit any crappy old
    >>> snapshot whether it relates to the mandate or not. As a result, the
    >>> SI's standards get lower and lower. Anyone with any ability takes it
    >>> elsewhere and leaves the job of plumbing the depths of mediocrity to
    >>> those who are left behind, who have absolutely no interest in
    >>> self-improvement.
    >>>
    >>> Why on earth would any competent photographer wish to waste their time
    >>> participating in such a complete mess?
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >>Since you are so competent

    >
    >
    > I make no claims of competence. None.
    >
    >
    >>why don't you give us a link to you stock photos,
    >>so that we may all learn and practice the self improvement you talk about.

    >
    >
    > Anyone who has a genuine interest in the subjects I shoot will have
    > absolutely no problem finding them.
    >
    >
    >>Better yet, do you have a web page we can learn from?

    >
    >
    > I have several web pages. Anyone who has a genuine interest in the
    > subjects I shoot will have absolutely no problem finding them.
    >



    I have such interest, but have problems with Google. We all need help in
    finding your work.
    Please, great one, give us the help we need. Surely it takes less time to
    post a link, then make the comments you have made.


    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 7, 2010
    #11
  12. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:34:49 -0500, "Peter"
    <> wrote:

    >"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:03:37 -0500, "Peter"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:08:17 -0500, Bowser <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>However, if you are the type of shooter
    >>>>>who must slavishly follow a pre-set visual definition, then the
    >>>>>shoot-in is not for you.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Except when shooting for stock, my work follows a brief that is set
    >>>> by, or agreed with the client. If I don't work within the brief, I
    >>>> won't get paid. And since the majority of my income comes from repeat
    >>>> customers, referrals and recommendations, my business would rapidly go
    >>>> downhill.
    >>>>
    >>>> You might ask what relevance that has to the SI. Well, when the SI
    >>>> started, the intention was that people submitting images to the SI
    >>>> would also work to a brief. The idea was to make the experience
    >>>> similar to that of a professional, in order to stretch people and help
    >>>> them to improve. Laudable aims.
    >>>>
    >>>> The problem was the "brief" became a "mandate". Now the word
    >>>> "mandate" means an order, or a decree. It suggests a lot less
    >>>> flexibility than a brief. In other words, it is even more strict.
    >>>>
    >>>> However, those running the SI and submitting images to it took it to
    >>>> mean quite the opposite, something far more relaxed than a brief. A
    >>>> theme perhaps.
    >>>>
    >>>> But even that is routinely ignored, and people submit any crappy old
    >>>> snapshot whether it relates to the mandate or not. As a result, the
    >>>> SI's standards get lower and lower. Anyone with any ability takes it
    >>>> elsewhere and leaves the job of plumbing the depths of mediocrity to
    >>>> those who are left behind, who have absolutely no interest in
    >>>> self-improvement.
    >>>>
    >>>> Why on earth would any competent photographer wish to waste their time
    >>>> participating in such a complete mess?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Since you are so competent

    >>
    >>
    >> I make no claims of competence. None.
    >>
    >>
    >>>why don't you give us a link to you stock photos,
    >>>so that we may all learn and practice the self improvement you talk about.

    >>
    >>
    >> Anyone who has a genuine interest in the subjects I shoot will have
    >> absolutely no problem finding them.
    >>
    >>
    >>>Better yet, do you have a web page we can learn from?

    >>
    >>
    >> I have several web pages. Anyone who has a genuine interest in the
    >> subjects I shoot will have absolutely no problem finding them.
    >>

    >
    >
    >I have such interest, but have problems with Google. We all need help in
    >finding your work.



    If you had a genuine interest in the subjects I shoot , you would have
    found them already. They are very easy to find; they generate
    opportunities for more work than I can ever hope to do.

    But if your interest is frivolous, you may never find them, because
    they are emphatically *not* aimed at people like you.

    If there is something that you need to learn, buy a suitable book,
    read it and learn from it, or take a suitable course and learn
    everything you can, or put some of your images up for critique at one
    of the dozens of sites that offer it, then learn from that.

    I doubt there is anything I can teach you, and I have no interest
    whatsoever in trying. I shoot images for money. It pays the
    mortgage. Photography is not my hobby. It isn't something I do
    outside working hours.
     
    Bruce, Feb 7, 2010
    #12
  13. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:08:01 -0800, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >On 2010-02-07 11:11:58 -0800, Bruce <> said:
    >
    >> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 10:13:12 -0800, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> What standards?

    >>
    >> My point, exactly. There aren't any.

    >
    >Given that your edit to my response places it entirely out of context,
    >I would just repeat what I had said;
    >"What standards?
    >If you check http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage you will find the
    >"standards" are pretty much limited to the following:
    >The shooter's interpretation of the mandate, even if it might not be
    >obvious to some viewers.
    >File size, no larger than 300kB.
    >An attempt to keep to the naming convention."



    There's a lot more than that on the rulz page. You have quoted "how"
    to enter the SI but you haven't even begun to address "why".

    When the SI was established, mutual improvement was very much the
    foundation of the whole thing. Over six years later, the rulz, hazy
    though they are, still emphasise that point. Perhaps SI participants
    should refresh their memories and read the rulz again. For some, it
    may be the first time, given how many of the SI entrants seem to
    ignore them completely.


    >Your argument is unimpressive, and you certainly have no credentials to
    >be critical of any aspect of what is an entertaining enterprise. There
    >seem to be few standards of any kind, photographic or decency, you have
    >been able to maintain.
    >
    >Your opinion it seems is not worthy of any consideration, as it is
    >without merit, and has no value as any sort of constructive critique.
    >So it can be relegated to cyber purgatory.



    I hope you don't think that such a torrent of personal abuse qualifies
    you for the moral high ground, because from your standpoint deep in
    the gutter, you would need a very long ladder to help you climb to the
    dizzy heights of cyber purgatory.
     
    Bruce, Feb 7, 2010
    #13
  14. Bruce

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:24:11 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    : On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:08:05 -0500, Bowser <> wrote:
    : >On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:42:55 -0500, tony cooper
    : ><> wrote:
    : >>
    : >>Has Bruce approved of these mandates?
    : >
    : >Yes. Bruce and I met and discussed these mandates at length. After
    : >several marathon sessions with heated arguments lasting countless
    : >hours on end, Bruce and I finally agreed on the mandates and capture
    : >dates. The duration of these sessions is why the mandates were late in
    : >coming.
    :
    :
    : ROTFL!!!
    :
    : My approval was only reluctantly given, on the basis of a solemn
    : promise by Bowser that any entries that did not conform to the
    : requirements of the mandate would not be allowed.
    :
    : Isn't that right, Bowser? After all, we wouldn't want another
    : embarrassing fiasco like the last time, now would we?

    What embarrassing fiasco? Who was embarrassed? The only thing embarrassing in
    this thread is you.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Feb 7, 2010
    #14
  15. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:34:49 -0500, "Peter"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:03:37 -0500, "Peter"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >>>>news:...
    >>>>> On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:08:17 -0500, Bowser <> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>However, if you are the type of shooter
    >>>>>>who must slavishly follow a pre-set visual definition, then the
    >>>>>>shoot-in is not for you.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Except when shooting for stock, my work follows a brief that is set
    >>>>> by, or agreed with the client. If I don't work within the brief, I
    >>>>> won't get paid. And since the majority of my income comes from repeat
    >>>>> customers, referrals and recommendations, my business would rapidly go
    >>>>> downhill.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You might ask what relevance that has to the SI. Well, when the SI
    >>>>> started, the intention was that people submitting images to the SI
    >>>>> would also work to a brief. The idea was to make the experience
    >>>>> similar to that of a professional, in order to stretch people and help
    >>>>> them to improve. Laudable aims.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The problem was the "brief" became a "mandate". Now the word
    >>>>> "mandate" means an order, or a decree. It suggests a lot less
    >>>>> flexibility than a brief. In other words, it is even more strict.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> However, those running the SI and submitting images to it took it to
    >>>>> mean quite the opposite, something far more relaxed than a brief. A
    >>>>> theme perhaps.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> But even that is routinely ignored, and people submit any crappy old
    >>>>> snapshot whether it relates to the mandate or not. As a result, the
    >>>>> SI's standards get lower and lower. Anyone with any ability takes it
    >>>>> elsewhere and leaves the job of plumbing the depths of mediocrity to
    >>>>> those who are left behind, who have absolutely no interest in
    >>>>> self-improvement.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Why on earth would any competent photographer wish to waste their time
    >>>>> participating in such a complete mess?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Since you are so competent
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I make no claims of competence. None.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>why don't you give us a link to you stock photos,
    >>>>so that we may all learn and practice the self improvement you talk
    >>>>about.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Anyone who has a genuine interest in the subjects I shoot will have
    >>> absolutely no problem finding them.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Better yet, do you have a web page we can learn from?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I have several web pages. Anyone who has a genuine interest in the
    >>> subjects I shoot will have absolutely no problem finding them.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >>I have such interest, but have problems with Google. We all need help in
    >>finding your work.

    >
    >
    > If you had a genuine interest in the subjects I shoot , you would have
    > found them already. They are very easy to find; they generate
    > opportunities for more work than I can ever hope to do.
    >
    > But if your interest is frivolous, you may never find them, because
    > they are emphatically *not* aimed at people like you.
    >
    > If there is something that you need to learn, buy a suitable book,
    > read it and learn from it, or take a suitable course and learn
    > everything you can, or put some of your images up for critique at one
    > of the dozens of sites that offer it, then learn from that.
    >
    > I doubt there is anything I can teach you, and I have no interest
    > whatsoever in trying. I shoot images for money. It pays the
    > mortgage. Photography is not my hobby. It isn't something I do
    > outside working hours.
    >


    I believe you. Sure I do. I forgot that your fame as a professional
    photographer is so great that you have no need to make it easy for creative
    directors to easily find your work. Creative directors have nothing to do
    but spend extra time to locate your work. You must be so good.

    Candidly, you are so full of s--t it is coming out of your ears. <\end of my
    feeding of you>


    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 8, 2010
    #15
  16. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:24:11 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    > : On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:08:05 -0500, Bowser <> wrote:
    > : >On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:42:55 -0500, tony cooper
    > : ><> wrote:
    > : >>
    > : >>Has Bruce approved of these mandates?
    > : >
    > : >Yes. Bruce and I met and discussed these mandates at length. After
    > : >several marathon sessions with heated arguments lasting countless
    > : >hours on end, Bruce and I finally agreed on the mandates and capture
    > : >dates. The duration of these sessions is why the mandates were late in
    > : >coming.
    > :
    > :
    > : ROTFL!!!
    > :
    > : My approval was only reluctantly given, on the basis of a solemn
    > : promise by Bowser that any entries that did not conform to the
    > : requirements of the mandate would not be allowed.
    > :
    > : Isn't that right, Bowser? After all, we wouldn't want another
    > : embarrassing fiasco like the last time, now would we?
    >
    > What embarrassing fiasco? Who was embarrassed? The only thing embarrassing
    > in
    > this thread is you.



    Wrong. I should also be embarrassed for bothering to respond to him.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 8, 2010
    #16
  17. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2010020716040943042-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > On 2010-02-07 15:22:50 -0800, Bruce <> said:
    >
    >> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:08:01 -0800, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>> On 2010-02-07 11:11:58 -0800, Bruce <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 10:13:12 -0800, Savageduck
    >>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> What standards?
    >>>>
    >>>> My point, exactly. There aren't any.
    >>>
    >>> Given that your edit to my response places it entirely out of context,
    >>> I would just repeat what I had said;
    >>> "What standards?
    >>> If you check http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage you will find the
    >>> "standards" are pretty much limited to the following:
    >>> The shooter's interpretation of the mandate, even if it might not be
    >>> obvious to some viewers.
    >>> File size, no larger than 300kB.
    >>> An attempt to keep to the naming convention."

    >>
    >>
    >> There's a lot more than that on the rulz page. You have quoted "how"
    >> to enter the SI but you haven't even begun to address "why".

    >
    > I would refer you to the first line on the rulz page;
    > "The shoot-in isn't a conventional competition, or even a competition at
    > all. The first goal is entertainment, so there can be any number of
    > "winners.""
    >
    > The 4th paragraph reads;
    > "Participants will endeavor to make a photo that is connected to the
    > mandate. Interpretation, reaction, illustration, whatever. Connected."
    >
    >>
    >> When the SI was established, mutual improvement was very much the
    >> foundation of the whole thing. Over six years later, the rulz, hazy
    >> though they are, still emphasise that point.

    >
    > Hey! we agree on something!
    >
    >> Perhaps SI participants
    >> should refresh their memories and read the rulz again. For some, it
    >> may be the first time, given how many of the SI entrants seem to
    >> ignore them completely.

    >
    > See 4th paragraph above.
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>> Your argument is unimpressive, and you certainly have no credentials to
    >>> be critical of any aspect of what is an entertaining enterprise. There
    >>> seem to be few standards of any kind, photographic or decency, you have
    >>> been able to maintain.
    >>>
    >>> Your opinion it seems is not worthy of any consideration, as it is
    >>> without merit, and has no value as any sort of constructive critique.
    >>> So it can be relegated to cyber purgatory.

    >>
    >>
    >> I hope you don't think that such a torrent of personal abuse qualifies
    >> you for the moral high ground, because from your standpoint deep in
    >> the gutter, you would need a very long ladder to help you climb to the
    >> dizzy heights of cyber purgatory.

    >
    > Me dousing you with a torrent of personal abuse?
    > That is amusing coming from you.
    > As for moral high ground, this is a newsgroup and the playing field is
    > pretty level, with the exception of the holes you have dug for yourself.
    > As for your assertion that my standpoint is deep in the gutter, I would
    > challenge you to at least provide photographic evidence of that. You have
    > provided us plenty of evidence to support your familiarity the gutter.
    >



    Careful. You and I may nest be accused of being un-American. We are not
    engrossed in the Superbowl.
    Actually, I have probably already lost my bet.

    --
    Peter
     
    Peter, Feb 8, 2010
    #17
  18. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 16:04:09 -0800, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >As for your assertion that my standpoint is deep in the
    >gutter, I would challenge you to at least provide photographic evidence
    >of that.



    I don't think I - or anyone else - could possibly stoop that low.
     
    Bruce, Feb 8, 2010
    #18
  19. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 16:14:21 -0800, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >Then it seems you are contributing to the wrong newsgroups. Let's see,
    >rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.equipment.35mm,
    >rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.
    >Couldn't you find a "pro" version of any of those groups? Is it any
    >wonder you look down on all of us recreational, hobbyist, amateur
    >photographers with such scorn.
    >
    >...and you are so self absorb with your "professionalism" there is no
    >doubt you have no intention of providing constructive criticism, or
    >advices to lead any of us lowly hobbyists to improve our photography.
    >
    >What a pompous ass!



    More personal abuse ...

    That hole you're in is getting deeper and deeper. Keep digging!
     
    Bruce, Feb 8, 2010
    #19
  20. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 7 Feb 2010 16:19:31 -0800, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >We are an honorable group.



    Spoken from the gutter.
     
    Bruce, Feb 8, 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. Bowser

    [SI] New mandates coming soon...

    Bowser, Feb 5, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    333
    Robert Coe
    Feb 10, 2010
  2. Robert Coe

    Re: [SI] New Mandates! Get 'em while they're hot!

    Robert Coe, Jul 5, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    55
    Views:
    1,043
  3. Bruce

    Re: [SI] New Mandates!

    Bruce, Sep 22, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    267
  4. Superzooms Still Win

    Re: [SI] New Mandates!

    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 23, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    288
    Superzooms Still Win
    Sep 24, 2010
  5. tony cooper

    Re: [SI] New Mandates!

    tony cooper, Jan 7, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    250
    peter
    Jan 17, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page