Re: [SI] New Mandates!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bruce, Sep 22, 2010.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Bowser <> wrote:
    >Time for some new mandates for the Shoot-In. The committee has met and
    >chosen these three mandates for your consideration:
    >
    >Last 90: Simply put, send your favorite shot(s) of the last 90 days.
    >This should be easy, but you MUST explain why these are your favorite
    >shots. No explanation, no shot posted. I'll include the explanation
    >with each shot.
    >
    >http://www.pbase.com/shootin/last90
    >Due October 24th, 2010
    >
    >Open: Yes, a shooter's choice mandate. The shootin dictator likes to
    >do this every so often to give the shooters freedom to fire at will
    >and show us the results.
    >
    >http://www.pbase.com/shootin/open2
    >Due November 21st, 2010



    How will anyone know the difference between these two? It is a
    certain sign of creative bankruptcy to have two completely open
    mandates one after another.

    But experience shows that the mandates mean nothing. In the "50mm"
    mandate, a shot that clearly wasn't taken with a 50mm lens (or
    equivalent) was allowed entry to the SI. Then, the "Pinhole" mandate
    was liberally interpreted by some as "choose one of your favourite
    photo locations and stick a pin in the map at that point".

    So perhaps, if the mandates are ignored, they are a waste of time, and
    all SIs should be open. In which case, the SI has no point, but we
    knew that anyway.
    Bruce, Sep 22, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bruce

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:48:21 +0100, Bruce <>
    wrote:

    >Bowser <> wrote:
    >>Time for some new mandates for the Shoot-In. The committee has met and
    >>chosen these three mandates for your consideration:
    >>
    >>Last 90: Simply put, send your favorite shot(s) of the last 90 days.
    >>This should be easy, but you MUST explain why these are your favorite
    >>shots. No explanation, no shot posted. I'll include the explanation
    >>with each shot.
    >>
    >>http://www.pbase.com/shootin/last90
    >>Due October 24th, 2010
    >>
    >>Open: Yes, a shooter's choice mandate. The shootin dictator likes to
    >>do this every so often to give the shooters freedom to fire at will
    >>and show us the results.
    >>
    >>http://www.pbase.com/shootin/open2
    >>Due November 21st, 2010

    >
    >
    >How will anyone know the difference between these two? It is a
    >certain sign of creative bankruptcy to have two completely open
    >mandates one after another.
    >
    >But experience shows that the mandates mean nothing. In the "50mm"
    >mandate, a shot that clearly wasn't taken with a 50mm lens (or
    >equivalent) was allowed entry to the SI. Then, the "Pinhole" mandate
    >was liberally interpreted by some as "choose one of your favourite
    >photo locations and stick a pin in the map at that point".
    >
    >So perhaps, if the mandates are ignored, they are a waste of time, and
    >all SIs should be open. In which case, the SI has no point, but we
    >knew that anyway.


    Feel free to comment on anything, Bruce, but it seems to me that if
    the Shoot-In interests you enough to worry about mandate compliance
    then you should be interested enough to comment on the photos.

    Even if your comments are negative, at least you would be contributing
    something by your critiques.

    I agree that the Shoot-In has no point, but I don't see why it should.
    It's entertainment for those who participate. Entertainment doesn't
    need a point. It needs only to amuse those who participate.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Sep 22, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >On 2010-09-22 09:48:21 -0700, Bruce <> said:
    >> Bowser <> wrote:
    >>> Time for some new mandates for the Shoot-In. The committee has met and
    >>> chosen these three mandates for your consideration:
    >>>
    >>> Last 90: Simply put, send your favorite shot(s) of the last 90 days.
    >>> This should be easy, but you MUST explain why these are your favorite
    >>> shots. No explanation, no shot posted. I'll include the explanation
    >>> with each shot.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/last90
    >>> Due October 24th, 2010
    >>>
    >>> Open: Yes, a shooter's choice mandate. The shootin dictator likes to
    >>> do this every so often to give the shooters freedom to fire at will
    >>> and show us the results.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/open2
    >>> Due November 21st, 2010

    >>
    >>
    >> How will anyone know the difference between these two? It is a
    >> certain sign of creative bankruptcy to have two completely open
    >> mandates one after another.

    >
    >I grudgingly agree, there was a Bowser cop-out on this proposal, given
    >that we had a "Favorite Shot" mandate a mere 9 months ago. There is
    >still an opportunity for him to change at least the second of these
    >mandates.
    >
    >>
    >> But experience shows that the mandates mean nothing. In the "50mm"
    >> mandate, a shot that clearly wasn't taken with a 50mm lens (or
    >> equivalent) was allowed entry to the SI. Then, the "Pinhole" mandate
    >> was liberally interpreted by some as "choose one of your favourite
    >> photo locations and stick a pin in the map at that point".

    >
    >For those who take them even slightly seriously, we try to find some
    >way to meet the mandate. That is the challenge after all. Which is
    >where the problem with a "favorite" or a "Shooter's Choice" mandate
    >lies. Then it becomes subjective and a matter of personal taste, and no
    >challenge at all.
    >Part of this game is trying to think out of the box, not to work within
    >a comfort zone.
    >>
    >> So perhaps, if the mandates are ignored, they are a waste of time, and
    >> all SIs should be open. In which case, the SI has no point, but we
    >> knew that anyway.

    >
    >...but this should give you an opportunity to participate in and enjoy,
    >rather than criticize something you apparently are not interest in.



    A few months ago I made some genuinely positive, constructive
    suggestions as to how the SI could be improved out of all recognition.
    They were all rejected by Bowser. That was his choice, and the SI
    remains a joke.

    My choice is, and always has been, not to participate in anything
    which does not have improvement as its core objective, and as the new
    mandates prove, the SI just gets steadily worse, and worse.

    It should be allowed to die, now.
    Bruce, Sep 22, 2010
    #3
  4. Bruce

    Tim Conway Guest

    "LOL!" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:59:42 -0700, Savageduck
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >> It is not meant to be taken seriously.

    >
    > Why state the obvious? That's glaringly apparent from all the crapshots
    > that are always submitted. The most recent are absolutely no different.
    > Yours being the best examples of all.
    >
    > LOL!
    >
    > When I think of all the time and effort that Putz Furman wasted on that
    > fuzzy soft and noisy skeeter-wing mess .... ROFLMAO! I thought only that
    > much noise was in my 1/2.5" sensor cameras at ISO 3200. So much for that
    > lie about larger sensors being of any benefit for noise levels--at only
    > ISO200 too. LOL! And someone sorely needs a primer in microscopy
    > illumination basics. 141 frames stacked for a subject that flat?
    > Everything
    > he could possibly do wrong he did do wrong. While still managing to
    > totally
    > miss the guidelines of the mandate. LOL! Oh wait! I get it now! The sensor
    > "noise" in his image is supposed to be for the mandate topic! Or I guess
    > he
    > needed an excuse to show that beginner's crap in order to somehow justify
    > his waste of time and money.
    >
    > LOL!
    >
    > Does bad-patch-job editor Peter even know what is meant by "skimmers
    > skimming?" Or is he referring to his skimming the bottom of the barrel
    > trying to find something to show? I'll chalk this up to his obvious
    > displays of dementia. And Cooper, if you're going to take that much time
    > to
    > clone in stuff on a worthless shot at least you should get the lighting
    > something closer to what happens in this universe.
    >
    > LOL!!!!!!!!
    >

    "Danger, Will Robinson; Danger, Will Robinson. Mr Smith is here again with
    his continuing rant of negativity!"
    Tim Conway, Sep 23, 2010
    #4
  5. Bruce

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:03:02 -0500, LOL! <> wrote:

    >Does bad-patch-job editor Peter even know what is meant by "skimmers
    >skimming?" Or is he referring to his skimming the bottom of the barrel
    >trying to find something to show? I'll chalk this up to his obvious
    >displays of dementia. And Cooper, if you're going to take that much time to
    >clone in stuff on a worthless shot at least you should get the lighting
    >something closer to what happens in this universe.
    >

    The lighting is called "sunlight". It comes from that big fiery ball
    in the sky that you will see if you come out of your basement in the
    day time. The speaker was sitting outside in a salvage yard.

    You should have submitted something. Surely you have photographed
    something other than that fuzzy blob you claimed to be a rare moth.
    If you sent in a second shot, we'd be able to judge your Photoshop
    skills by how well you cloned out the real photographer's watermark.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Sep 23, 2010
    #5
  6. Bruce

    Pete Guest

    On 2010-09-23 01:31:50 +0100, tony cooper said:

    > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:03:02 -0500, LOL! <> wrote:
    >
    >> Does bad-patch-job editor Peter even know what is meant by "skimmers
    >> skimming?" Or is he referring to his skimming the bottom of the barrel
    >> trying to find something to show? I'll chalk this up to his obvious
    >> displays of dementia. And Cooper, if you're going to take that much time to
    >> clone in stuff on a worthless shot at least you should get the lighting
    >> something closer to what happens in this universe.
    >>

    > The lighting is called "sunlight". It comes from that big fiery ball
    > in the sky that you will see if you come out of your basement in the
    > day time. The speaker was sitting outside in a salvage yard.
    >
    > You should have submitted something. Surely you have photographed
    > something other than that fuzzy blob you claimed to be a rare moth.
    > If you sent in a second shot, we'd be able to judge your Photoshop
    > skills by how well you cloned out the real photographer's watermark.


    10/10

    --
    Pete
    Pete, Sep 23, 2010
    #6
  7. Bruce

    Pete Guest

    On 2010-09-23 01:45:05 +0100, LOL! said:

    > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:31:50 -0400, tony cooper
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Surely you have photographed
    >> something other than that fuzzy blob you claimed to be a rare moth.

    >
    > Oh look! The lying slanderous libelous TROLL is at it again! Show me again
    > where I posted ANY photo claiming it to be a RARE MOTH.
    >
    > Can't you at least be a little more creative in your lies so you're not so
    > EASILY exposed for the lying motherfucking **** of a libelous and
    > slanderous TROLL that you are? Not to mention total crapshooter.


    0/10

    --
    Pete
    Pete, Sep 23, 2010
    #7
  8. Bruce

    Pete Guest

    On 2010-09-23 02:38:23 +0100, LOL! said:

    > On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 02:18:49 +0100, Pete
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2010-09-23 01:31:50 +0100, tony cooper said:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:03:02 -0500, LOL! <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Does bad-patch-job editor Peter even know what is meant by "skimmers
    >>>> skimming?" Or is he referring to his skimming the bottom of the barrel
    >>>> trying to find something to show? I'll chalk this up to his obvious
    >>>> displays of dementia. And Cooper, if you're going to take that much time to
    >>>> clone in stuff on a worthless shot at least you should get the lighting
    >>>> something closer to what happens in this universe.
    >>>>
    >>> The lighting is called "sunlight". It comes from that big fiery ball
    >>> in the sky that you will see if you come out of your basement in the
    >>> day time. The speaker was sitting outside in a salvage yard.
    >>>
    >>> You should have submitted something. Surely you have photographed
    >>> something other than that fuzzy blob you claimed to be a rare moth.
    >>> If you sent in a second shot, we'd be able to judge your Photoshop
    >>> skills by how well you cloned out the real photographer's watermark.

    >>
    >> 10/10

    >
    > Again, you claim I stole some images and posted them by agreeing with a
    > fellow lying slanderous and libelous **** of a troll.
    >
    > I'll still chalk this up to your senility and dementia. But it's no excuse
    > once you've already been proved to ALSO being a lying slanderous and
    > libelous motherfucking **** of a troll as I already have before this. And
    > now again.


    Did you forget that you posed this same message three minutes before?

    --
    Pete
    Pete, Sep 23, 2010
    #8
  9. Bruce

    Pete Guest

    On 2010-09-23 03:22:55 +0100, LOL! said:

    > On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 02:50:23 +0100, Pete
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2010-09-23 02:38:23 +0100, LOL! said:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 02:18:49 +0100, Pete
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2010-09-23 01:31:50 +0100, tony cooper said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:03:02 -0500, LOL! <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Does bad-patch-job editor Peter even know what is meant by "skimmers
    >>>>>> skimming?" Or is he referring to his skimming the bottom of the barrel
    >>>>>> trying to find something to show? I'll chalk this up to his obvious
    >>>>>> displays of dementia. And Cooper, if you're going to take that much time to
    >>>>>> clone in stuff on a worthless shot at least you should get the lighting
    >>>>>> something closer to what happens in this universe.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> The lighting is called "sunlight". It comes from that big fiery ball
    >>>>> in the sky that you will see if you come out of your basement in the
    >>>>> day time. The speaker was sitting outside in a salvage yard.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You should have submitted something. Surely you have photographed
    >>>>> something other than that fuzzy blob you claimed to be a rare moth.
    >>>>> If you sent in a second shot, we'd be able to judge your Photoshop
    >>>>> skills by how well you cloned out the real photographer's watermark.
    >>>>
    >>>> 10/10
    >>>
    >>> Again, you claim I stole some images and posted them by agreeing with a
    >>> fellow lying slanderous and libelous **** of a troll.
    >>>
    >>> I'll still chalk this up to your senility and dementia. But it's no excuse
    >>> once you've already been proved to ALSO being a lying slanderous and
    >>> libelous motherfucking **** of a troll as I already have before this. And
    >>> now again.

    >>
    >> Did you forget that you posed this same message three minutes before?

    >
    > You're still displaying signs of senility and dementia, I see. They are not
    > both the same message.
    >
    > Well, c'mon you lying slanderous and libelous ****! Post PROOF that I ever
    > stole ANY images! Until then, you're nothing but a low-life gutter-trash
    > lying slanderous **** of a troll. And if you do come up with something that
    > seems to infer that then I get to ALSO prove that you are a lying
    > slanderous **** of a troll!
    >
    > Either way you get to prove that you are a TOTAL LOSER, no matter which way
    > you turn on this one.


    0/10

    --
    Pete
    Pete, Sep 23, 2010
    #9
  10. Bruce

    LOL! Guest

    On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 03:48:39 +0100, Pete
    <> wrote:

    >On 2010-09-23 03:22:55 +0100, LOL! said:
    >
    >> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 02:50:23 +0100, Pete
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2010-09-23 02:38:23 +0100, LOL! said:
    >>>
    >>>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 02:18:49 +0100, Pete
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2010-09-23 01:31:50 +0100, tony cooper said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:03:02 -0500, LOL! <> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Does bad-patch-job editor Peter even know what is meant by "skimmers
    >>>>>>> skimming?" Or is he referring to his skimming the bottom of the barrel
    >>>>>>> trying to find something to show? I'll chalk this up to his obvious
    >>>>>>> displays of dementia. And Cooper, if you're going to take that much time to
    >>>>>>> clone in stuff on a worthless shot at least you should get the lighting
    >>>>>>> something closer to what happens in this universe.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> The lighting is called "sunlight". It comes from that big fiery ball
    >>>>>> in the sky that you will see if you come out of your basement in the
    >>>>>> day time. The speaker was sitting outside in a salvage yard.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> You should have submitted something. Surely you have photographed
    >>>>>> something other than that fuzzy blob you claimed to be a rare moth.
    >>>>>> If you sent in a second shot, we'd be able to judge your Photoshop
    >>>>>> skills by how well you cloned out the real photographer's watermark.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 10/10
    >>>>
    >>>> Again, you claim I stole some images and posted them by agreeing with a
    >>>> fellow lying slanderous and libelous **** of a troll.
    >>>>
    >>>> I'll still chalk this up to your senility and dementia. But it's no excuse
    >>>> once you've already been proved to ALSO being a lying slanderous and
    >>>> libelous motherfucking **** of a troll as I already have before this. And
    >>>> now again.
    >>>
    >>> Did you forget that you posed this same message three minutes before?

    >>
    >> You're still displaying signs of senility and dementia, I see. They are not
    >> both the same message.
    >>
    >> Well, c'mon you lying slanderous and libelous ****! Post PROOF that I ever
    >> stole ANY images! Until then, you're nothing but a low-life gutter-trash
    >> lying slanderous **** of a troll. And if you do come up with something that
    >> seems to infer that then I get to ALSO prove that you are a lying
    >> slanderous **** of a troll!
    >>
    >> Either way you get to prove that you are a TOTAL LOSER, no matter which way
    >> you turn on this one.

    >
    >0/10


    There you have it folks! His admission that he's a lying slanderous and
    libelous **** of a troll!

    Thanks!
    LOL!, Sep 23, 2010
    #10
    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:
    329
    Robert Coe
    Feb 10, 2010
  2. Bruce

    Re: [SI] New Mandates

    Bruce, Feb 6, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    803
    Peter
    Feb 11, 2010
  3. Robert Coe

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

    Robert Coe, Jul 5, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    55
    Views:
    1,034
  4. Superzooms Still Win

    Re: [SI] New Mandates!

    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 23, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    280
    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:
    247
    peter
    Jan 17, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page