[SI] New Mandate: Interesting (see description)

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 09:56:39 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2009-08-02 09:32:00 -0700, Paul Furman said:

Annika1980 wrote:


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/115630331

The feet are interesting.

Bret, this is just a great capture & pic

Too sterile, too lifeless. It looks like a taxidermist's mount. No
interesting composition. Too muted, too boring. It doesn't show off a Green
Heron's colors well at all. At first I almost mistook it for a
Louisiana/Tri-Color Heron with its neck retracted and tucked, due to the
drab browns. The Green Herons that I've seen and photographed are a more
bluish-green with a maroon chest, hence their name.

Is the blurriness in the feathers, especially the back of the bird, due to
downsizing? Or is this just the camera focusing on the nearer leg and
getting the rest of the bird out of focus? The more I look it's not a
downsizing issue or the details in the foot and stump would be blurred too.
It seems to be an auto-focusing error with a too shallow DOF for the
subject. A common problem. The camera focused on the more contrasting foot
and stump and left the more muted main subject out of the equation. The
optics then not having enough DOF to compensate for it.

There's some annoying red chromatic-aberration on the edge of the bright
white on the forewing. It's not sensor blooming or the red would appear on
both sides of that white stripe, or in the small blown highlights on the
stump. That's lateral or linear CA caused by some optical element. It's
very odd that the CA should appear in the middle of the image. Is this a
heavy corner crop from a larger image? It might be an example of how
optical image stabilization causes this at random times in strange ways.

Sorry, but the mind is always drawn to a photograph's problems if the
subject is not interesting enough to keep the eye away from them.


As for Green Herons, I'd much more prefer a photo like this one.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3494/...41b40b75_o.jpg A random
shot pulled from one of my heron DVDs. Not one of my favorites, the
in-camera composition was a bit off. The bird should have been slightly
higher and more to the right, more showing below the feet. An okay one for
demonstration purposes.

When comparing the two images it's hard to believe these are the same
species.

If not liking the subject then ignore the over-sharpening, greatly
exaggerated from the original by all the jpg-compression edge clutter. This
was taken long ago with an earlier P&S camera before I knew better to turn
down the in-camera sharpening in digital cameras.

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 09:48:40 -0400, "Bowser" wrote:


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:29:36 -0400, "Bowser" wrote:

See the rulez page for more info:

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

Oops. I didn't know that.

I've sent in a submission which doesn't follow your file naming
convention. Should I do it again with a corrected file name?

Nah, I'll fix it up. No need to resubmit.

I have a photo that is correctly named, but is not at all interesting.
Will you fix it if I send it in?

Doubtful. I wouldn't know an interesting shot if it bit my ass.

"The pixel Bandit" wrote in message
...
Bowser wrote:

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:57:09 -0700 (PDT), Noons
wrote:
: On Jul 31, 11:33 am, Robert Coe wrote:
:
: which we all have to get along, or it ceases to be fun.
:
: Bob
:
: I'm truly amazed you're still here, if you're after "fun".

Touché, I guess. But then what's your excuse (for staying)? Your
campaign
against people posting to aus.photo seems to have largely petered out.

Why don't you send something to the Shoot-In next time? Or do you, under
a
different name? I never figured you for a sock, but you never know.

First rule of the shoot-in: trolls have endless hours to complain about
it but no time at all to shoot and submit.

So someone who once upon a time could have been correctly described as a
prolific poster to shootin ...who thinks this management is stuffing it up
even worse than the last and decides to protest about the dismal decline
in submissions they lamely tried to cover up by taking three pics instead
of one as submissions...

And straight away they are a troll?

I'm rather surprised you can't see that. Takes one to know one.


Get a life Bowser. And for God's sake stop re-posting this crap all over
Usenet will you?

Simple advice: filter. If you're not bright enough to filter all "[SI]"
posts, let me know and I'll send help.

Oh, and by the way, I've have had, and having, and will have more of a life
than 99% of the planet. I have no complaints or regrets for my life. You?

"Noons" wrote in message
...

Second rule of the shoot-in: absolutely nothing forces anyone to
participate in that crap.

Or read the posts, which you do voluntarily. Thanks!


Now: kindly **** off aus.photo with your trolling or stay on topic, moron.

What, you don't know how to filter either? Want some instruction? I'd be
glad to help.

"GavinS" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:13:19 -0400, "Bowser" wrote:

"Interesting." Shoot a picture of something that the viewer of the pic,
not
necessarily you, find interesting.

Excuse me, but that's the whole point of all photography. Was I supposed
to
be taking photographs of things that only I'm interested in all my life?
How silly of me. If I can't capture an image that others will find
interesting then what's the point? I find this theme of yours rather
strange I guess. Even stranger is any "photographer" who would think that
it is supposed to be some kind of unique category or challenge.

Uh, the mandate is supposed to get you to stretch you imagination and
skills. Nobody is telling you how to shoot. Not to worry, just shoot,
submit, and compare. It's no big deal, really.

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:46:35 +1000, Noons wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 1/08/2009 11:32 PM:
: :
: : I'm truly amazed you're still here, if you're after "fun".
:
: Touché, I guess. But then what's your excuse (for staying)? Your campaign
: against people posting to aus.photo seems to have largely petered out.
:
: Why don't you send something to the Shoot-In next time? Or do you, under
: a different name? I never figured you for a sock, but you never know.
:
: Actually, if you stopped lying, you'd be less likely to be pointed out as
: a low life idiotic troll.

Please forgive me for trying to deal with you in a civilized manner. It's a
mistake I'll try to remember not to repeat.

: I never stopped anyone from legitimately posting in aus.photo, you stupid
: moron.

I don't recall saying that you did. But for several weeks a while back you
seemed preoccupied with coarsely berating people for posting in aus.photo, a
newsgroup of which most of us had never heard. That campaign was an obvious
failure, as this thread demonstrates.

: I do however stop off-topic posts from taking off in that newsgroup, by
: interfering with them. And it has never stopped: just try it again and
: watch what happens.

As if.

: Capice, or is reality too tough for you?

Reality is that I don't give a rat's ass what you say, think, or do.

Bob

On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 22:25:47 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
: On 2009-08-01 21:14:35 -0700, Will Billiams said:
:
: On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:00:48 -0400, tony cooper
: wrote:
:
: As I've said before, I like the mandate angle because it forces me to
: look at scenes for aspects that might not be considered otherwise.
: Mandates can make you see pictures where no picture was seen without
: the suggestion of the mandate.
:
: The same can be done with a daily horoscope reading. I've never found a use
: for astrology other than used as a good "what if" thinking-exercise toy.
: Though I did study it extensively for a period just to satisfy my own
: insatiable curiosity. Results = no conclusive results at all. In fact it
: was wrong slightly more times than correct. No better than tossing a coin.
: I have however found that when pressed with a difficult problem a horoscope
: reading can nudge you out of a thinking-rut and suggest new possibilities
: that went unconsidered before due to its more extensive language compared
: to a coin toss. I'm not in any way suggesting that horoscopes are in any
: way true however. You can use those like random photography mandates, to
: suggest what you should photograph that day. With or without SI
: participation. No need to wait for another SI mandate if you're looking for
: creative and random suggestions. A way to toss dice that return more than
: just a number. Outside of that and similar "what if" thinking-exercise
: uses, I see no other benefit to astrology.
:
: Well that could make for some "interesting" mandates;
: Male sheep, mountain goats, oversized pussy cats(lions), fish, twins,
: weighing devices, crusteateans, Arthropodic arachnids, deformed horses
: with a propensity towards archery, jugs or buckets of water, boring
: young women, or male bovines. That should cover us for a year.

Don't forget that in astrology the sequence is important:

"The ramble twins crab liverish;
Scaly scorpions are good water fish."

;^)

Bob

:
:
: Come to think of it, if the SI gang is hard-pressed for new ideas they
: might consider each person submitting an image suggested by the
: photographer's horoscope in the paper that day. Titling that image with
: that person's horoscope that day. It would be just as effective, just as
: random, just as challenging. If a photographer felt that day's horoscope
: challenge beyond them, they could wait 'til the next day, or the next, or
: the next, ... You know, until the planets were in the proper alignment. (-:
:
: Naah! I have a hard time dealing with organized religions, they are
: fantasy enough for me without adding another mind numbing element of
: horoscope.
:
:
: Purists will however compare EXIF creation data with the photograph's natal
: horoscope, the time of its birth. (-: That's humor in case anyone takes
: this seriously.
:
: ...and that is certainly giggle-worthy.

"Robert Coe" wrote in message


[...]

I don't recall saying that you did. But for several weeks a while
back you seemed preoccupied with coarsely berating people for posting
in aus.photo, a newsgroup of which most of us had never heard. That
campaign was an obvious failure, as this thread demonstrates.

aus.* are simply traps for idiots from Austin, TX.

[F-U set]

Bruce wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:03:05 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:
Reality is that I don't give a rat's ass what you say, think, or do.

The fact that you replied says otherwise.

Not necessarily! It could well be that he cares what others think. Fwiw,
I don't much care in what manner noonsie rants, but do care about how
others perceive me and my ranting.

I've been one of the few to try to keep contentious and or stupid crap
out of aus.photo.

--
John McWilliams

Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 5/08/2009 2:28 AM:
Noons wrote:
On Aug 4, 5:31 am, "Bowser" wrote:

Second rule of the shoot-in: absolutely nothing forces anyone to
participate in that crap.
Or read the posts, which you do voluntarily. Thanks!


No problem.



Now: kindly **** off aus.photo with your trolling or stay on topic,
moron.
What, you don't know how to filter either? Want some instruction? I'd be
glad to help.

You don't know enough about computers to tell anyone anything about
filtering.
Either stay on topic of the shoot-in or **** off aus.photo. Last
warning.

Go **** yourself, Noons.


Go **** yourself, ****head.