Re: [SI] Pairs comments - Alan B.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by tony cooper, Jul 25, 2012.

  1. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:40:06 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >Comments on the "Pairs, triplets, series, patterns, echoes, reflections"
    >mandate.
    >
    >PREAMBLE
    >
    >This shootin mandate has rewarded us with a lot of good efforts and a
    >surprisingly low number of old shots. People 'spotted' opportunities
    >and used them to good, even great effect. Some things surprised me.
    >For example the sense of "reflections" to me was to show both object and
    >image, not just image as was present in a lot of shots (possibly not
    >deliberately so in some). OTOH, some of the images used reflections
    >well to layer image upon other scene elements.
    >
    >Technically, I found this lot of photos to be wanting - the subjects and
    >opportunities were excellent but the execution was not very good.
    >
    >Also several people seem to have made their mandate in a single
    >location, setting and time. This doesn't lead to the best selection of
    >photos or opportunities.
    >
    >A thing that I think some shooters should work more on is "working" the
    >subject. Don't take one or two photos. Take dozens. Experiment on
    >perspective, FOV, DOF, isolation, abstractedness, BG placement - indeed
    >various times of the day and different weather. We're well into the
    >digital era and experimentation is very cheap (other than time of course).
    >
    >But, who am I to complain with a single entry...
    >

    As you know, my daughter and son-in-law submitted entries for the
    first time. They don't read the newsgroup, so they don't know
    anything about the background of the SI. All Cleary and Dave knew was
    the subject of the mandate.

    They did view the PBase page. What confused them was the word "PAIRS"
    in front of each image. Both had submitted images with other factors
    in mind. Once I explained that, they were OK with it.

    The second thing that they commented on was the comments. I had sent
    them all of the comments about their images (and mine) by email. One
    comment about Cleary's sunflower was a question about the comment that
    the image didn't really say "pairs". Evidently, she is not the only
    one who was confused about the word attached to each image.

    They were also a bit perplexed about some comments that assumed
    different equipment was used than was available to photographer. I
    can relate to this because you just suggested that I adjust my flash
    setting. My SB400 has no such feature.

    They were quite pleased, *quite* pleased, about the comments, though.
    The only previous exposure they've had to critiques have been just the
    typical "Great shot!" bullshit that most places provide. They were
    delighted that people actually provided meaningful comments and
    criticism.

    The only real negative they expressed was that they were surprised
    that so few people, considering the number that submitted images, took
    the time to comment. They didn't comment, though, because they don't
    have access to the newsgroup. I told them that I'd relay any future
    comments.

    Since there were no objections to their participation, they intend to
    look for "On the road" images. I hope this is acceptable to all.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jul 25, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:03:47 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 2012-07-25 16:27 , tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:40:06 -0400, Alan Browne
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Comments on the "Pairs, triplets, series, patterns, echoes, reflections"
    >>> mandate.
    >>>
    >>> PREAMBLE
    >>>
    >>> This shootin mandate has rewarded us with a lot of good efforts and a
    >>> surprisingly low number of old shots. People 'spotted' opportunities
    >>> and used them to good, even great effect. Some things surprised me.
    >>> For example the sense of "reflections" to me was to show both object and
    >>> image, not just image as was present in a lot of shots (possibly not
    >>> deliberately so in some). OTOH, some of the images used reflections
    >>> well to layer image upon other scene elements.
    >>>
    >>> Technically, I found this lot of photos to be wanting - the subjects and
    >>> opportunities were excellent but the execution was not very good.
    >>>
    >>> Also several people seem to have made their mandate in a single
    >>> location, setting and time. This doesn't lead to the best selection of
    >>> photos or opportunities.
    >>>
    >>> A thing that I think some shooters should work more on is "working" the
    >>> subject. Don't take one or two photos. Take dozens. Experiment on
    >>> perspective, FOV, DOF, isolation, abstractedness, BG placement - indeed
    >>> various times of the day and different weather. We're well into the
    >>> digital era and experimentation is very cheap (other than time of course).
    >>>
    >>> But, who am I to complain with a single entry...
    >>>

    >> As you know, my daughter and son-in-law submitted entries for the
    >> first time. They don't read the newsgroup, so they don't know
    >> anything about the background of the SI. All Cleary and Dave knew was
    >> the subject of the mandate.

    >
    >They did fine.
    >
    >> They did view the PBase page. What confused them was the word "PAIRS"
    >> in front of each image. Both had submitted images with other factors
    >> in mind. Once I explained that, they were OK with it.

    >
    >Pairs was just a shorthand for file submission.


    That's what I explained.

    >>
    >> The second thing that they commented on was the comments. I had sent
    >> them all of the comments about their images (and mine) by email. One
    >> comment about Cleary's sunflower was a question about the comment that
    >> the image didn't really say "pairs". Evidently, she is not the only
    >> one who was confused about the word attached to each image.

    >
    >In each announcement I put up the full title. The announcement page on
    >Pbase has the full description.


    They don't see the announcements.

    >> They were also a bit perplexed about some comments that assumed
    >> different equipment was used than was available to photographer. I
    >> can relate to this because you just suggested that I adjust my flash
    >> setting. My SB400 has no such feature.

    >
    >QUOTE
    > Flash compensation is also available with optional SB-400,
    > SB-800, SB-600, and SU-800 flash units
    >UNQUOTE
    >page 60. Fine Nikon D60 manual.
    >http://finearts.uvic.ca/sim/equipment/manuals/_photography/Nikon_D60.pdf


    You expect me to RTFM? Hell, I'm a hip-shooter. I just recently
    purchased the SB-400 and rarely use it. I just happened to have it in
    the bag that day.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jul 26, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:22:33 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-07-25 13:27:44 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    ><<< Le Snipp >>>
    >
    >> As you know, my daughter and son-in-law submitted entries for the
    >> first time. They don't read the newsgroup, so they don't know
    >> anything about the background of the SI. All Cleary and Dave knew was
    >> the subject of the mandate.
    >>
    >> They did view the PBase page. What confused them was the word "PAIRS"
    >> in front of each image. Both had submitted images with other factors
    >> in mind. Once I explained that, they were OK with it.

    >
    >The "Rulzpage" spells out quite a bit of the SI concept, including the
    >thinking behind labeling for a specific mandate to newcomers.
    >< http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage >



    They didn't know about the Rulzpage. Remember, this was a
    spur-of-the-moment casual invitation to submit some images.

    Believe it or not, they don't have internet access at home. Cleary
    accesses the internet at work. Not everyone is hooked on this thing
    the way we are.
    >>
    >> The second thing that they commented on was the comments. I had sent
    >> them all of the comments about their images (and mine) by email. One
    >> comment about Cleary's sunflower was a question about the comment that
    >> the image didn't really say "pairs". Evidently, she is not the only
    >> one who was confused about the word attached to each image.

    >
    >I believe that the SI posting Committee had determined that maintaining
    >a consistent labeling convention for this mandate would actually make
    >things simpler, given the assumption that all those who had submitted
    >actually read what Alan had requested regarding labeling, to use
    >"Pairs-Name-x", one would think that all folks might understand the
    >simplification. He is the one currently sorting through the submissions
    >and posting them.


    She wasn't complaining. Just confused.

    >Personally I got it, and labeled my comments "Pairs-01"-"Pairs-03"
    >regardless of content. Since I understood what the mandate was, "Pairs,
    >Triplets, series, patterns, echoes, reflections" I didn't find it in
    >anyway confusing.
    >>
    >> They were also a bit perplexed about some comments that assumed
    >> different equipment was used than was available to photographer.

    >
    >Why? Some folks will comment without looking at the EXIF detail, or the
    >might be missing, so assumptions are easily made.
    >We were also fortunate to have a few newcomers dipping their toes into
    >the murky waters of the commentary, and they have yet to develop a
    >style or character to their comments. As you know it can be tough, and
    >we should not discourage them.


    This was their first time doing something like this. They didn't know
    what to expect. Haven't you ever been new to something?


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jul 26, 2012
    #3
  4. tony cooper

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:27:44 -0400, tony cooper <>
    wrote:
    : As you know, my daughter and son-in-law submitted entries for the
    : first time. They don't read the newsgroup, so they don't know
    : anything about the background of the SI. All Cleary and Dave knew was
    : the subject of the mandate.
    :
    : They did view the PBase page. What confused them was the word "PAIRS"
    : in front of each image. Both had submitted images with other factors
    : in mind. Once I explained that, they were OK with it.
    :
    : The second thing that they commented on was the comments. I had sent
    : them all of the comments about their images (and mine) by email. One
    : comment about Cleary's sunflower was a question about the comment that
    : the image didn't really say "pairs". Evidently, she is not the only
    : one who was confused about the word attached to each image.

    I was. At first I thought it said "Paris". And I'm thinking, "What does this
    mandate have to do with the capital of France?"

    : They were also a bit perplexed about some comments that assumed
    : different equipment was used than was available to photographer. I
    : can relate to this because you just suggested that I adjust my flash
    : setting. My SB400 has no such feature.

    Neither, BTW, does the new Canon M. No flash, no flash setting. Now I'm *sure*
    they mean to evolve it into a replacement for the 5D.

    : They were quite pleased, *quite* pleased, about the comments, though.
    : The only previous exposure they've had to critiques have been just the
    : typical "Great shot!" bullshit that most places provide. They were
    : delighted that people actually provided meaningful comments and
    : criticism.
    :
    : The only real negative they expressed was that they were surprised
    : that so few people, considering the number that submitted images, took
    : the time to comment. They didn't comment, though, because they don't
    : have access to the newsgroup. I told them that I'd relay any future
    : comments.

    As a last resort, they could read them (and I guess respond, although I've
    never tried to do that) via Google Groups.

    : Since there were no objections to their participation, they intend to
    : look for "On the road" images. I hope this is acceptable to all.

    Acceptable?? Surely you jest. We need all the interested newcomers we can
    attract. I'm still trying to lure my daughter in. She spotted the reflection
    opportunity that I submitted this time, and also the venue for a couple of
    pictures I may submit next time. The only drawback is that she's more into
    child photography than the the typical SI mandates.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jul 26, 2012
    #4
  5. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:37:15 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-07-25 17:27:07 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:22:33 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2012-07-25 13:27:44 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >>>
    >>> <<< Le Snipp >>>
    >>>
    >>>> As you know, my daughter and son-in-law submitted entries for the
    >>>> first time. They don't read the newsgroup, so they don't know
    >>>> anything about the background of the SI. All Cleary and Dave knew was
    >>>> the subject of the mandate.
    >>>>
    >>>> They did view the PBase page. What confused them was the word "PAIRS"
    >>>> in front of each image. Both had submitted images with other factors
    >>>> in mind. Once I explained that, they were OK with it.
    >>>
    >>> The "Rulzpage" spells out quite a bit of the SI concept, including the
    >>> thinking behind labeling for a specific mandate to newcomers.
    >>> < http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage >

    >>
    >>
    >> They didn't know about the Rulzpage.

    >
    >...but you did.


    We discussed the mandate at a family outing at a rented cabin in the
    Ocala National Forest. No internet access. I wasn't even sure they'd
    follow up and submit until I got a thumb drive in the mail. (We send
    thumb drives back-and-forth containing our images)

    I haven't looked at the Rulzpage for over a year.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jul 26, 2012
    #5
  6. tony cooper

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:22:33 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    : On 2012-07-25 13:27:44 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    : > The only real negative [my daughter and son-in-law] expressed was that
    : > they were surprised that so few people, considering the number that
    : > submitted images, took the time to comment. They didn't comment,
    : > though, because they don't have access to the newsgroup. I told them
    : > that I'd relay any future comments.
    :
    : What's new? We have regular commentators who chose not to contribute
    : this time, other than responding to others comments on their work, and
    : we had commentators who comment selectively on images they deem as
    : worthy of their attention. Personally I believe that all images
    : submitted are worthy of some comment, good bad, or indifferent.

    All that prevents me from commenting on every picture, every time, is the
    Republican Congress's surly unwillingness to adopt a 28-hour day and an 8-day
    week. :^(

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jul 26, 2012
    #6
  7. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:16:48 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 2012-07-25 20:22 , tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:03:47 -0400, Alan Browne
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2012-07-25 16:27 , tony cooper wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:40:06 -0400, Alan Browne
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Comments on the "Pairs, triplets, series, patterns, echoes, reflections"
    >>>>> mandate.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> PREAMBLE
    >>>>>
    >>>>> This shootin mandate has rewarded us with a lot of good efforts and a
    >>>>> surprisingly low number of old shots. People 'spotted' opportunities
    >>>>> and used them to good, even great effect. Some things surprised me.
    >>>>> For example the sense of "reflections" to me was to show both object and
    >>>>> image, not just image as was present in a lot of shots (possibly not
    >>>>> deliberately so in some). OTOH, some of the images used reflections
    >>>>> well to layer image upon other scene elements.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Technically, I found this lot of photos to be wanting - the subjects and
    >>>>> opportunities were excellent but the execution was not very good.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Also several people seem to have made their mandate in a single
    >>>>> location, setting and time. This doesn't lead to the best selection of
    >>>>> photos or opportunities.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> A thing that I think some shooters should work more on is "working" the
    >>>>> subject. Don't take one or two photos. Take dozens. Experiment on
    >>>>> perspective, FOV, DOF, isolation, abstractedness, BG placement - indeed
    >>>>> various times of the day and different weather. We're well into the
    >>>>> digital era and experimentation is very cheap (other than time of course).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> But, who am I to complain with a single entry...
    >>>>>
    >>>> As you know, my daughter and son-in-law submitted entries for the
    >>>> first time. They don't read the newsgroup, so they don't know
    >>>> anything about the background of the SI. All Cleary and Dave knew was
    >>>> the subject of the mandate.
    >>>
    >>> They did fine.
    >>>
    >>>> They did view the PBase page. What confused them was the word "PAIRS"
    >>>> in front of each image. Both had submitted images with other factors
    >>>> in mind. Once I explained that, they were OK with it.
    >>>
    >>> Pairs was just a shorthand for file submission.

    >>
    >> That's what I explained.
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>> The second thing that they commented on was the comments. I had sent
    >>>> them all of the comments about their images (and mine) by email. One
    >>>> comment about Cleary's sunflower was a question about the comment that
    >>>> the image didn't really say "pairs". Evidently, she is not the only
    >>>> one who was confused about the word attached to each image.
    >>>
    >>> In each announcement I put up the full title. The announcement page on
    >>> Pbase has the full description.

    >>
    >> They don't see the announcements.

    >
    >You can forward them by e-mail as copy-paste or link.


    I didn't think of that before the first submission. It's been
    explained now that she brought it up. Besides, the rulzpage is pretty
    dull reading.

    I'm just relating a newcomer's experience.

    >>
    >>>> They were also a bit perplexed about some comments that assumed
    >>>> different equipment was used than was available to photographer. I
    >>>> can relate to this because you just suggested that I adjust my flash
    >>>> setting. My SB400 has no such feature.
    >>>
    >>> QUOTE
    >>> Flash compensation is also available with optional SB-400,
    >>> SB-800, SB-600, and SU-800 flash units
    >>> UNQUOTE
    >>> page 60. Fine Nikon D60 manual.
    >>> http://finearts.uvic.ca/sim/equipment/manuals/_photography/Nikon_D60.pdf

    >>
    >> You expect me to RTFM? Hell, I'm a hip-shooter. I just recently
    >> purchased the SB-400 and rarely use it. I just happened to have it in
    >> the bag that day.

    >
    >I'm appalled that a man with your business acumen would make a capital
    >acquisition without realizing full value of the equipment before it
    >depreciates in value.


    I don't consider $100, or whatever it was, to be a capital
    acquisition. Like many things, it takes a mistake before there's
    impetus to look into preventing a future mistake. It wasn't a money
    shot to begin with.

    As far as the SB400, it was a mistake in the first place. I should
    have opted for an SB with a swivel head. It was an impulse buy. With
    the SB400, I can direct the flash upwards for bounce, but I can't do
    that in portrait. I'll experiment with a white card or something.

    >I'll add here here that using that flash for fill lighting may give you
    >more joy and happiness than using it as a key light.


    Most of what I do involves not drawing attention to myself with a
    flash.

    I
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jul 26, 2012
    #7
  8. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:17:56 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-07-25 17:54:16 -0700, Robert Coe <> said:
    >
    >> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:22:33 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >> : On 2012-07-25 13:27:44 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >> : > The only real negative [my daughter and son-in-law] expressed was that
    >> : > they were surprised that so few people, considering the number that
    >> : > submitted images, took the time to comment. They didn't comment,
    >> : > though, because they don't have access to the newsgroup. I told them
    >> : > that I'd relay any future comments.
    >> :
    >> : What's new? We have regular commentators who chose not to contribute
    >> : this time, other than responding to others comments on their work, and
    >> : we had commentators who comment selectively on images they deem as
    >> : worthy of their attention. Personally I believe that all images
    >> : submitted are worthy of some comment, good bad, or indifferent.
    >>
    >> All that prevents me from commenting on every picture, every time, is the
    >> Republican Congress's surly unwillingness to adopt a 28-hour day and an 8-day
    >> week. :^(
    >>
    >> Bob

    >
    >When we have a mandate where there are a more than welcome, larger
    >number of contributors than in the recent past, I find I have to spent
    >1-2 hours on the task.
    >That 1-2 hours might be spread over 6 hours. So I write my draft using
    >my current word processor on my Mac, "Pages". I pretty much create a
    >basic template with the SI shooters and the label for each of their
    >shots, and fill in my comments as I go. I take snack & whistle wetting
    >breaks, or deal with other looming tasks as needed. I then copy the
    >final commentary into a Usenet post.
    >
    >I could just as easily have posted my comments as a PDF.
    >< http://db.tt/40nEpycw >


    My comments tend to be long and rambling. I'm able to do this because
    my wife went to nursing school in 1956. After a few years of OR
    shifts starting at 7AM, which required arising at 5AM, she's never
    been a night person.

    I am. I seldom hit the sack before 1AM to 2AM, and stop watching any
    TV shows when my wife retires. That leaves me hours to waste on
    things like this.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jul 26, 2012
    #8
  9. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:20:54 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 2012-07-25 20:43 , Robert Coe wrote:
    >
    >> I was. At first I thought it said "Paris". And I'm thinking, "What does this
    >> mandate have to do with the capital of France?"

    >
    >No, no, no ...
    >http://tinyurl.com/2cq6oss


    I submit http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMM18_Paris_Indiana
    Everything's bigger in Texas.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jul 26, 2012
    #9
  10. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/25/2012 4:27 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:40:06 -0400, Alan Browne
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Comments on the "Pairs, triplets, series, patterns, echoes, reflections"
    >> mandate.
    >>
    >> PREAMBLE
    >>
    >> This shootin mandate has rewarded us with a lot of good efforts and a
    >> surprisingly low number of old shots. People 'spotted' opportunities
    >> and used them to good, even great effect. Some things surprised me.
    >> For example the sense of "reflections" to me was to show both object and
    >> image, not just image as was present in a lot of shots (possibly not
    >> deliberately so in some). OTOH, some of the images used reflections
    >> well to layer image upon other scene elements.
    >>
    >> Technically, I found this lot of photos to be wanting - the subjects and
    >> opportunities were excellent but the execution was not very good.
    >>
    >> Also several people seem to have made their mandate in a single
    >> location, setting and time. This doesn't lead to the best selection of
    >> photos or opportunities.
    >>
    >> A thing that I think some shooters should work more on is "working" the
    >> subject. Don't take one or two photos. Take dozens. Experiment on
    >> perspective, FOV, DOF, isolation, abstractedness, BG placement - indeed
    >> various times of the day and different weather. We're well into the
    >> digital era and experimentation is very cheap (other than time of course).
    >>
    >> But, who am I to complain with a single entry...
    >>

    > As you know, my daughter and son-in-law submitted entries for the
    > first time. They don't read the newsgroup, so they don't know
    > anything about the background of the SI. All Cleary and Dave knew was
    > the subject of the mandate.
    >
    > They did view the PBase page. What confused them was the word "PAIRS"
    > in front of each image. Both had submitted images with other factors
    > in mind. Once I explained that, they were OK with it.
    >
    > The second thing that they commented on was the comments. I had sent
    > them all of the comments about their images (and mine) by email. One
    > comment about Cleary's sunflower was a question about the comment that
    > the image didn't really say "pairs". Evidently, she is not the only
    > one who was confused about the word attached to each image.
    >
    > They were also a bit perplexed about some comments that assumed
    > different equipment was used than was available to photographer. I
    > can relate to this because you just suggested that I adjust my flash
    > setting. My SB400 has no such feature.
    >
    > They were quite pleased, *quite* pleased, about the comments, though.
    > The only previous exposure they've had to critiques have been just the
    > typical "Great shot!" bullshit that most places provide. They were
    > delighted that people actually provided meaningful comments and
    > criticism.
    >
    > The only real negative they expressed was that they were surprised
    > that so few people, considering the number that submitted images, took
    > the time to comment. They didn't comment, though, because they don't
    > have access to the newsgroup. I told them that I'd relay any future
    > comments.
    >
    > Since there were no objections to their participation, they intend to
    > look for "On the road" images. I hope this is acceptable to all.
    >
    >

    From my viewpoint, it should be encouraged. I also hope you will be as
    candid with your public opinions of their images, as you are with ours.

    --

    PeterN
    PeterN, Jul 26, 2012
    #10
  11. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:14:11 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >> As you know, my daughter and son-in-law submitted entries for the
    >> first time. They don't read the newsgroup, so they don't know
    >> anything about the background of the SI. All Cleary and Dave knew was
    >> the subject of the mandate.
    >> Since there were no objections to their participation, they intend to
    >> look for "On the road" images. I hope this is acceptable to all.
    >>
    >>

    > From my viewpoint, it should be encouraged. I also hope you will be as
    >candid with your public opinions of their images, as you are with ours.


    http://www.pbase.com/shootin/pairs_triplets_

    I declined to comment here on their first submissions, but I did
    comment personally to them. They don't read the newsgroup, so they
    wouldn't have seen any comments I made here.

    However, since you ask:

    ClearyC - Bird Fight. I like the subject matter, the composition, and
    the sharpness of the birds. Triplets fall in the mandate. It's a
    little bit heavy to the right with much more interesting colors and
    shapes than that on the left.

    ClearyC - Pair of Lovers. Good catch for the mandate, and good
    close-up for a 200mm lens. The sharpness of the material on the right
    is unfortunate, but you catch these critters when you can. An attempt
    could have been made to blur this out in PSE, but the one dragonfly's
    legs would have presented a problem.

    ClearyC - Sunflower. My favorite of the submissions. There's depth
    to the green parts and delicacy to the petals. Uneven lighting and
    shadows are pretty much unavoidable in daylight shots of flowers, but
    that lightness at 11 o'clock could have been improved in post.

    DaveC - Pair of Drops. While I like the drops, the blurriness of the
    flowers themselves distracts me. If the eye could be contained by the
    drops, it wouldn't be a problem. However, the magenta areas fight for
    attention.

    DaveC - Wave Pattern. This is difficult for me to evaluate. I'm the
    one who suggested excessive sharpening to bring out the pattern of the
    water, so the effect on the foamy part is part my doing. I would like
    to see this carried a step further towards the abstract to avoid
    viewing the foamy parts as a realistic representative of waves.

    OK...do I come across as fair or biased, Peter?


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jul 26, 2012
    #11
  12. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/25/2012 6:22 PM, Savageduck wrote:

    ..
    <snip>

    > What's new? We have regular commentators who chose not to contribute
    > this time, other than responding to others comments on their work, and
    > we had commentators who comment selectively on images they deem as
    > worthy of their attention. Personally I believe that all images
    > submitted are worthy of some comment, good bad, or indifferent.
    >


    True, but how meaningful is a comment such as: "I agree with _______ ."
    And the commentator has nothing to add.


    --

    PeterN
    PeterN, Jul 27, 2012
    #12
  13. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:19:13 -0400, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 7/25/2012 6:22 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >
    >.
    ><snip>
    >
    >> What's new? We have regular commentators who chose not to contribute
    >> this time, other than responding to others comments on their work, and
    >> we had commentators who comment selectively on images they deem as
    >> worthy of their attention. Personally I believe that all images
    >> submitted are worthy of some comment, good bad, or indifferent.
    >>

    >
    >True, but how meaningful is a comment such as: "I agree with _______ ."
    >And the commentator has nothing to add.


    I think that it is meaningful. It says that _____ is not the only one
    who sees it that way. If X says the image is OOF, Y offers no more by
    saying the image is OOF than he does by saying he agrees with X.

    Just that statement, though, is not really enough. Adding something
    would be good.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jul 27, 2012
    #13
  14. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/25/2012 9:20 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    > On 2012-07-25 20:43 , Robert Coe wrote:
    >
    >> I was. At first I thought it said "Paris". And I'm thinking, "What
    >> does this
    >> mandate have to do with the capital of France?"

    >
    > No, no, no ...
    > http://tinyurl.com/2cq6oss
    >
    >



    Still wrong.
    This is closer to travelling:
    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Hilton>

    --

    PeterN
    PeterN, Jul 27, 2012
    #14
  15. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/26/2012 6:44 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:14:11 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>> As you know, my daughter and son-in-law submitted entries for the
    >>> first time. They don't read the newsgroup, so they don't know
    >>> anything about the background of the SI. All Cleary and Dave knew was
    >>> the subject of the mandate.
    >>> Since there were no objections to their participation, they intend to
    >>> look for "On the road" images. I hope this is acceptable to all.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> From my viewpoint, it should be encouraged. I also hope you will be as
    >> candid with your public opinions of their images, as you are with ours.

    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/pairs_triplets_
    >
    > I declined to comment here on their first submissions, but I did
    > comment personally to them. They don't read the newsgroup, so they
    > wouldn't have seen any comments I made here.
    >
    > However, since you ask:
    >
    > ClearyC - Bird Fight. I like the subject matter, the composition, and
    > the sharpness of the birds. Triplets fall in the mandate. It's a
    > little bit heavy to the right with much more interesting colors and
    > shapes than that on the left.
    >
    > ClearyC - Pair of Lovers. Good catch for the mandate, and good
    > close-up for a 200mm lens. The sharpness of the material on the right
    > is unfortunate, but you catch these critters when you can. An attempt
    > could have been made to blur this out in PSE, but the one dragonfly's
    > legs would have presented a problem.
    >
    > ClearyC - Sunflower. My favorite of the submissions. There's depth
    > to the green parts and delicacy to the petals. Uneven lighting and
    > shadows are pretty much unavoidable in daylight shots of flowers, but
    > that lightness at 11 o'clock could have been improved in post.
    >
    > DaveC - Pair of Drops. While I like the drops, the blurriness of the
    > flowers themselves distracts me. If the eye could be contained by the
    > drops, it wouldn't be a problem. However, the magenta areas fight for
    > attention.
    >
    > DaveC - Wave Pattern. This is difficult for me to evaluate. I'm the
    > one who suggested excessive sharpening to bring out the pattern of the
    > water, so the effect on the foamy part is part my doing. I would like
    > to see this carried a step further towards the abstract to avoid
    > viewing the foamy parts as a realistic representative of waves.
    >
    > OK...do I come across as fair or biased, Peter?
    >
    >


    Yup!
    Somehow, I don't think you would mince words.

    My younger daughter, is my severest critic, and her comments are usually
    spot on.

    --

    PeterN
    PeterN, Jul 27, 2012
    #15
  16. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/26/2012 6:58 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-07-25 17:22:11 -0700, tony cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:03:47 -0400, Alan Browne
    >> <> wrote:

    >
    > <<< Le Snip >>>
    >>
    >>
    >>>> They were also a bit perplexed about some comments that assumed
    >>>> different equipment was used than was available to photographer. I
    >>>> can relate to this because you just suggested that I adjust my flash
    >>>> setting. My SB400 has no such feature.
    >>>
    >>> QUOTE
    >>> Flash compensation is also available with optional SB-400,
    >>> SB-800, SB-600, and SU-800 flash units
    >>> UNQUOTE
    >>> page 60. Fine Nikon D60 manual.
    >>> http://finearts.uvic.ca/sim/equipment/manuals/_photography/Nikon_D60.pdf

    >>
    >> You expect me to RTFM?

    >
    > YES!!!
    >
    >> Hell, I'm a hip-shooter.

    >
    > That is no excuse.
    >
    >> I just recently
    >> purchased the SB-400 and rarely use it. I just happened to have it in
    >> the bag that day.

    >
    > Great! I carry all sorts of stuff in my bag, usually three additional
    > lenses, sunscreen, SB-800, batteries, CF cards, WB card, Giottos Rocket,
    > and a G11.
    >
    > RTFM!!! If you don't, then you are just guessing as to when you should
    > use the SB-400, or not, and how to optimize the degree of adjustability
    > available with your D60 + SB-400 combo. You might miss the time you
    > really need a fill flash, or some other lighting change only appropriate
    > use of an adjusted flash can give you, just because of your reluctance
    > to use that handy SB-400..
    >
    >

    Ther is no need to carry th FM. All the info is available on his smart
    phone. Oops! I forgot........

    --

    PeterN
    PeterN, Jul 27, 2012
    #16
  17. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/27/2012 10:26 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:19:13 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 7/25/2012 6:22 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>
    >> .
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>> What's new? We have regular commentators who chose not to contribute
    >>> this time, other than responding to others comments on their work, and
    >>> we had commentators who comment selectively on images they deem as
    >>> worthy of their attention. Personally I believe that all images
    >>> submitted are worthy of some comment, good bad, or indifferent.
    >>>

    >>
    >> True, but how meaningful is a comment such as: "I agree with _______ ."
    >> And the commentator has nothing to add.

    >
    > I think that it is meaningful. It says that _____ is not the only one
    > who sees it that way. If X says the image is OOF, Y offers no more by
    > saying the image is OOF than he does by saying he agrees with X.
    >
    > Just that statement, though, is not really enough. Adding something
    > would be good.
    >


    Yes. But, if IMO the commentator has said all that is necessary, what
    can I add.

    --

    PeterN
    PeterN, Jul 27, 2012
    #17
  18. tony cooper

    PeterN Guest

    On 7/27/2012 12:59 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-07-27 08:08:05 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 7/27/2012 10:26 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:19:13 -0400, PeterN
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 7/25/2012 6:22 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> .
    >>>> <snip>
    >>>>
    >>>>> What's new? We have regular commentators who chose not to contribute
    >>>>> this time, other than responding to others comments on their work, and
    >>>>> we had commentators who comment selectively on images they deem as
    >>>>> worthy of their attention. Personally I believe that all images
    >>>>> submitted are worthy of some comment, good bad, or indifferent.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> True, but how meaningful is a comment such as: "I agree with _______ ."
    >>>> And the commentator has nothing to add.
    >>>
    >>> I think that it is meaningful. It says that _____ is not the only one
    >>> who sees it that way. If X says the image is OOF, Y offers no more by
    >>> saying the image is OOF than he does by saying he agrees with X.
    >>>
    >>> Just that statement, though, is not really enough. Adding something
    >>> would be good.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Yes. But, if IMO the commentator has said all that is necessary, what
    >> can I add.

    >
    > There is always a different take on things.
    >
    > Take the following:
    > My comment;
    > "Tim Conway:
    > Pairs-01:
    > The Conway socks. A nice pair and good idea for employing the shadow
    > created pattern. However there remains a major OOF issue which cannot be
    > ignored. So great potential spoilt by bad focus."
    >
    > Alan Browne's comment:
    > "Tim Conway http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/144705061
    > I like the shadow laying diagonally across the socks. But overall it's a
    > bit of a soft and dull image. Too deliberately contrived."
    >
    > Similar thoughts behind the comments, but with a decidedly different
    > take regarding phrasing, and possible reception by Tim, or others who
    > might read both. Now you might agree with one, or other, or both of
    > those, but you might have seen something slightly different.
    > Alan was able to make his unique and similar comment for this image
    > without resorting to the worthless, "I agree with ___."
    >
    > In the case of one of your images you would have found this difference.
    > My comment favorable because I liked the shot, but empty of technical
    > critique, Alan's more detailed.
    >
    > My comment:
    > "Peter Newman:
    > Pairs-01:
    > Fishing net reflected on wet beach. Nice."
    >
    > Alan Browne's comment:
    > "Peter Newman http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/144738873
    > A very strong composition and of course speaks to my fetish for narrow
    > colour palettes that are well set off in the areas of light, shadow,
    > silhouette and reflection. Interesting symmetries as well. The most
    > poetic of the SI this turn and a case where cropping was used very well.
    > Technically seems a bit off - lots of JPG artifacts suggesting this was
    > a deep crop, then resized down to minimize softness or camera shake."
    >


    I understand what you are saying, anmd see your point, but, Had Alan
    made his comment prior to yours, and assuming you agreed with him, Your
    comment: "Fishing net reflected on wet beach. Nice." while making me fee
    good, woulld not help me to improve the image.

    Also, there are times when I am motivated to comment, and times when I
    am not. I feel that I have an ob;ligation to try to make a constructive
    comment, simply because that is the purpose of the group. If I can I
    comment on most. There are some images that I feel I cannot comment on
    in a constructive manner. Others As I've said earlier, I feel I have
    nothing to add. I would rather say something in a reasonable time, then
    hold all my comments back until I have something to add to all.

    --

    PeterN
    PeterN, Jul 27, 2012
    #18
  19. tony cooper

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:18:22 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >I know that is the way I learn when I read constructive criticism of my
    >submissions from others. However, when when somebody says something
    >negative, without providing reasons for their thoughts, with, or
    >without a path to a fix, the comment is diminished in value. Now if
    >that vapid comment is followed from another commentator by, "I agree
    >with _____" and there is an added personal reason for the agreement
    >regarding interpretation, and/or adding a capture, editing/adjustment
    >suggestion, it becomes a useful constructive comment.
    >

    The one unsupported negative comment that I feel is both acceptable
    and understandable is the one that goes something like "This image
    doesn't do much for me".

    There are images that are neither good nor bad, properly or improperly
    framed or processed, and/or with and without significant flaws. They
    are just without interest to the viewer.

    I don't see attempting to ascribe the lack of interest to flaws when
    the image fails because viewer doesn't see anything of interest in it.
    Nor, do I see trying to find something good about that image.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jul 27, 2012
    #19
  20. tony cooper

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:37:48 -0400, PeterN <>
    wrote:
    : On 7/27/2012 12:59 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    : > On 2012-07-27 08:08:05 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    : >
    : >> On 7/27/2012 10:26 AM, tony cooper wrote:
    : >>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:19:13 -0400, PeterN
    : >>> <> wrote:
    : >>>
    : >>>> On 7/25/2012 6:22 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    : >>>>
    : >>>> .
    : >>>> <snip>
    : >>>>
    : >>>>> What's new? We have regular commentators who chose not to contribute
    : >>>>> this time, other than responding to others comments on their work, and
    : >>>>> we had commentators who comment selectively on images they deem as
    : >>>>> worthy of their attention. Personally I believe that all images
    : >>>>> submitted are worthy of some comment, good bad, or indifferent.
    : >>>>>
    : >>>>
    : >>>> True, but how meaningful is a comment such as: "I agree with _______ ."
    : >>>> And the commentator has nothing to add.
    : >>>
    : >>> I think that it is meaningful. It says that _____ is not the only one
    : >>> who sees it that way. If X says the image is OOF, Y offers no more by
    : >>> saying the image is OOF than he does by saying he agrees with X.
    : >>>
    : >>> Just that statement, though, is not really enough. Adding something
    : >>> would be good.
    : >>>
    : >>
    : >> Yes. But, if IMO the commentator has said all that is necessary, what
    : >> can I add.
    : >
    : > There is always a different take on things.
    : >
    : > Take the following:
    : > My comment;
    : > "Tim Conway:
    : > Pairs-01:
    : > The Conway socks. A nice pair and good idea for employing the shadow
    : > created pattern. However there remains a major OOF issue which cannot be
    : > ignored. So great potential spoilt by bad focus."
    : >
    : > Alan Browne's comment:
    : > "Tim Conway http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/144705061
    : > I like the shadow laying diagonally across the socks. But overall it's a
    : > bit of a soft and dull image. Too deliberately contrived."
    : >
    : > Similar thoughts behind the comments, but with a decidedly different
    : > take regarding phrasing, and possible reception by Tim, or others who
    : > might read both. Now you might agree with one, or other, or both of
    : > those, but you might have seen something slightly different.
    : > Alan was able to make his unique and similar comment for this image
    : > without resorting to the worthless, "I agree with ___."
    : >
    : > In the case of one of your images you would have found this difference.
    : > My comment favorable because I liked the shot, but empty of technical
    : > critique, Alan's more detailed.
    : >
    : > My comment:
    : > "Peter Newman:
    : > Pairs-01:
    : > Fishing net reflected on wet beach. Nice."
    : >
    : > Alan Browne's comment:
    : > "Peter Newman http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/144738873
    : > A very strong composition and of course speaks to my fetish for narrow
    : > colour palettes that are well set off in the areas of light, shadow,
    : > silhouette and reflection. Interesting symmetries as well. The most
    : > poetic of the SI this turn and a case where cropping was used very well.
    : > Technically seems a bit off - lots of JPG artifacts suggesting this was
    : > a deep crop, then resized down to minimize softness or camera shake."
    : >
    :
    : I understand what you are saying, anmd see your point, but, Had Alan
    : made his comment prior to yours, and assuming you agreed with him, Your
    : comment: "Fishing net reflected on wet beach. Nice." while making me fee
    : good, woulld not help me to improve the image.

    Only if you weren't paying attention. The Duck told you that he saw your
    picture as a well executed piece of art with no deeper or hidden meaning
    (e.g., as an allegory for your take on the human condition) and little or
    nothing to teach the viewer, other than that a fishnet on a beach rendered
    that way looks good. And that's independent of whether Alan spoke first, last,
    or not at all. Whether that take on your picture is correct or not, only you
    can judge. But at least he's telling you how another person saw it.

    : Also, there are times when I am motivated to comment, and times when I
    : am not. I feel that I have an ob;ligation to try to make a constructive
    : comment, simply because that is the purpose of the group. If I can I
    : comment on most. There are some images that I feel I cannot comment on
    : in a constructive manner. Others As I've said earlier, I feel I have
    : nothing to add. I would rather say something in a reasonable time, then
    : hold all my comments back until I have something to add to all.

    This thread is degenerating into a murky, inconclusive analysis of analysis -
    the sort of thing you might get in a prolonged debate between an Orthodox
    rabbi and a Jesuit. I think we should simply acknowledge that comments are
    good (at least they demonstrate interest), well thought-out comments are
    better, and deep, penetrating insight is as valuable as it is rare. Then go
    ahead and take the comments we receive for what they seem to be worth,
    remembering always that pride and defensiveness are often a creative person's
    worst enemies.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jul 28, 2012
    #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. tony cooper

    Re: [SI] Pairs comments - Alan B.

    tony cooper, Jul 25, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    258
    tony cooper
    Jul 25, 2012
  2. tony cooper

    Re: [SI] Pairs comments - Alan B.

    tony cooper, Jul 25, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    260
    tony cooper
    Jul 25, 2012
  3. Robert Coe

    Re: [SI] Pairs comments - Alan B.

    Robert Coe, Jul 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    328
    Robert Coe
    Jul 27, 2012
  4. PeterN

    Re: [SI] Pairs comments - Alan B.

    PeterN, Jul 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    307
    PeterN
    Jul 26, 2012
  5. Robert Coe

    Re: [SI] Pairs comments - Alan B.

    Robert Coe, Jul 27, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    291
    Robert Coe
    Jul 27, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page