[SI] Dusk or Dawn is available mid day!

On 9/19/2011 8:15 PM, Paul Furman wrote:
PeterN wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
PeterN wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

As always, thanks to all for playing.

I've got one more I shot with the mandate in mind, after the deadline:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...n/photostream/

Great composition. I particularly like like the rock stacking in the
first Muir Beach. You have captured the mood. Too bad some of the dark
area seems a bit blocked. But, maybe it's the screen.

Thanks, I actually dropped the exposure almost a stop in post so it
looked like dawn, not a white sky, and a little more saturated.
At full size, you will see some crazy orange and purple star fish I
hadn't noticed in real life g
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...60580/sizes/o/

Ah! I see now why you dropped the exposure. The building in the
background is distracting. Could some cloning help?

There aren't any buildings big enough to see; between the large rocks is
Point Bonita headlands 4 miles away and Mt Davidson or Twin Peaks in San
Francisco 10 miles away with a radio tower - lights from the Sunset
District / Ocean Beach SF to the right of the rocks. Maybe San Bruno Mt
15 miles away.

What is that bright area?

--
Peter

PeterN wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
PeterN wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
PeterN wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

As always, thanks to all for playing.

I've got one more I shot with the mandate in mind, after the
deadline:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...n/photostream/

Great composition. I particularly like like the rock stacking in the
first Muir Beach. You have captured the mood. Too bad some of the dark
area seems a bit blocked. But, maybe it's the screen.

Thanks, I actually dropped the exposure almost a stop in post so it
looked like dawn, not a white sky, and a little more saturated.
At full size, you will see some crazy orange and purple star fish I
hadn't noticed in real life g
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...60580/sizes/o/

Ah! I see now why you dropped the exposure. The building in the
background is distracting. Could some cloning help?

There aren't any buildings big enough to see; between the large rocks is
Point Bonita headlands 4 miles away and Mt Davidson or Twin Peaks in San
Francisco 10 miles away with a radio tower - lights from the Sunset
District / Ocean Beach SF to the right of the rocks. Maybe San Bruno Mt
15 miles away.

What is that bright area?

Residential neighborhood street lights in the Outer Sunset district near
Ocean Beach, San Francisco, 8.5 miles away. It's out of focus because
I'm at f/4 to keep the ISO relatively low at 800. 40mm FX focused on the
rocks, 30 second exposure is max without a wired remote which I didn't
have in the bag.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:39:12 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 22:23:24 +0100, Bruce
wrote:
I asked him if he enjoyed judging, and what advice he would give
anyone considering taking it up (we get many requests from camera
clubs). He said he hated it, because few, if any camera club members
had even a slight grasp of the basics of photography despite many
having spent a lot of money on their photo outfits.

Bruce, I don't think you'd give Henri Cartier-Bresson credit for being
a good photographer, and you probably think that Ansel Adams just got
lucky a few times.


Please explain how your reply in any way relates to my paragraph
above? I quoted someone the words of a 'professional' judge without
adding to them in any way, then you replied as if those words were
mine, and twisted them out of all recognition in the process.

What is the point of trying to have a reasoned discussion with you
when you take *someone else's words*, then twist them, and use them to
beat *me* over the head?

I neither attempted to relate to your paragraph nor twisted anything
you said. It was a general observation based on your overall body of
posts. You have never, to my memory, acknowledged that any photograph
presented in the S-I groups or by links in non-S-I posts have any
merit whatsoever.

The problem your attitude presents is that you set no standard of
acceptability. If nothing is acceptable, then your rating system is
flawed because it doesn't set standards. When you rate everything as
"execrable", without saying what wasn't accomplished or what was done
wrong, the rating is meaningless.

Your quote of the judge brought your overall body posts and general
attitude to mind because the judge a person who admittedly continues
to do something he despises doing and feels that "few, if any" people
whose work he judges have any talent whatsoever. At least he
acknowledges that "few" have some talent, which is more than you do.

You and the judge are soured but kindred spirits. Still, nothing in
my post dissembled what you wrote or quoted. If anything, it
suggested the similarities of negativism between you and your judge.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 9/20/2011 10:32 AM, Paul Furman wrote:
PeterN wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
PeterN wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
PeterN wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

As always, thanks to all for playing.

I've got one more I shot with the mandate in mind, after the
deadline:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...n/photostream/

Great composition. I particularly like like the rock stacking in the
first Muir Beach. You have captured the mood. Too bad some of the
dark
area seems a bit blocked. But, maybe it's the screen.

Thanks, I actually dropped the exposure almost a stop in post so it
looked like dawn, not a white sky, and a little more saturated.
At full size, you will see some crazy orange and purple star fish I
hadn't noticed in real life g
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...60580/sizes/o/

Ah! I see now why you dropped the exposure. The building in the
background is distracting. Could some cloning help?

There aren't any buildings big enough to see; between the large rocks is
Point Bonita headlands 4 miles away and Mt Davidson or Twin Peaks in San
Francisco 10 miles away with a radio tower - lights from the Sunset
District / Ocean Beach SF to the right of the rocks. Maybe San Bruno Mt
15 miles away.

What is that bright area?

Residential neighborhood street lights in the Outer Sunset district near
Ocean Beach, San Francisco, 8.5 miles away. It's out of focus because
I'm at f/4 to keep the ISO relatively low at 800. 40mm FX focused on the
rocks, 30 second exposure is max without a wired remote which I didn't
have in the bag.

OK. but in any event, to my eyes the bright area detracts from a
beautiful scene.

Unless of course you intended to make a statement such as: all beauty
must come to an end.


--
Peter

PeterN wrote:
On 9/20/2011 10:32 AM, Paul Furman wrote:
PeterN wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
PeterN wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
PeterN wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

As always, thanks to all for playing.

I've got one more I shot with the mandate in mind, after the
deadline:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...n/photostream/

Great composition. I particularly like like the rock stacking in the
first Muir Beach. You have captured the mood. Too bad some of the
dark
area seems a bit blocked. But, maybe it's the screen.

Thanks, I actually dropped the exposure almost a stop in post so it
looked like dawn, not a white sky, and a little more saturated.
At full size, you will see some crazy orange and purple star fish I
hadn't noticed in real life g
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...60580/sizes/o/

Ah! I see now why you dropped the exposure. The building in the
background is distracting. Could some cloning help?

There aren't any buildings big enough to see; between the large
rocks is
Point Bonita headlands 4 miles away and Mt Davidson or Twin Peaks in
San
Francisco 10 miles away with a radio tower - lights from the Sunset
District / Ocean Beach SF to the right of the rocks. Maybe San Bruno Mt
15 miles away.

What is that bright area?

Residential neighborhood street lights in the Outer Sunset district near
Ocean Beach, San Francisco, 8.5 miles away. It's out of focus because
I'm at f/4 to keep the ISO relatively low at 800. 40mm FX focused on the
rocks, 30 second exposure is max without a wired remote which I didn't
have in the bag.

OK. but in any event, to my eyes the bright area detracts from a
beautiful scene.

Unless of course you intended to make a statement such as: all beauty
must come to an end.

:-)

Maybe the point was: look at how serene it can be just a few miles from
the hustle bustle of those nasty orange lights... lol

On 9/20/2011 12:49 PM, Paul Furman wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 9/20/2011 10:32 AM, Paul Furman wrote:
PeterN wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
PeterN wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
PeterN wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

As always, thanks to all for playing.

I've got one more I shot with the mandate in mind, after the
deadline:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...n/photostream/

Great composition. I particularly like like the rock stacking in
the
first Muir Beach. You have captured the mood. Too bad some of the
dark
area seems a bit blocked. But, maybe it's the screen.

Thanks, I actually dropped the exposure almost a stop in post so it
looked like dawn, not a white sky, and a little more saturated.
At full size, you will see some crazy orange and purple star fish I
hadn't noticed in real life g
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...60580/sizes/o/

Ah! I see now why you dropped the exposure. The building in the
background is distracting. Could some cloning help?

There aren't any buildings big enough to see; between the large
rocks is
Point Bonita headlands 4 miles away and Mt Davidson or Twin Peaks in
San
Francisco 10 miles away with a radio tower - lights from the Sunset
District / Ocean Beach SF to the right of the rocks. Maybe San
Bruno Mt
15 miles away.

What is that bright area?

Residential neighborhood street lights in the Outer Sunset district near
Ocean Beach, San Francisco, 8.5 miles away. It's out of focus because
I'm at f/4 to keep the ISO relatively low at 800. 40mm FX focused on the
rocks, 30 second exposure is max without a wired remote which I didn't
have in the bag.

OK. but in any event, to my eyes the bright area detracts from a
beautiful scene.

Unless of course you intended to make a statement such as: all beauty
must come to an end.

:-)

Maybe the point was: look at how serene it can be just a few miles from
the hustle bustle of those nasty orange lights... lol

the symbols we can find in photography, if we look hard enough:

the worst thing about a Sunday, is that Monday follows. LOL

--
Peter

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 20:52:24 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:39:12 +0100, Bruce
wrote:
tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 22:23:24 +0100, Bruce
wrote:
I asked him if he enjoyed judging, and what advice he would give
anyone considering taking it up (we get many requests from camera
clubs). He said he hated it, because few, if any camera club members
had even a slight grasp of the basics of photography despite many
having spent a lot of money on their photo outfits.

Bruce, I don't think you'd give Henri Cartier-Bresson credit for being
a good photographer, and you probably think that Ansel Adams just got
lucky a few times.


Please explain how your reply in any way relates to my paragraph
above? I quoted someone the words of a 'professional' judge without
adding to them in any way, then you replied as if those words were
mine, and twisted them out of all recognition in the process.

What is the point of trying to have a reasoned discussion with you
when you take *someone else's words*, then twist them, and use them to
beat *me* over the head?

I neither attempted to relate to your paragraph nor twisted anything
you said.


Apology accepted.

You confuse "denial" with "apology" which, implicitly, confuses "I
don't give a **** what you made of it" with "I'm sorry that you took
it that way".


It was a general observation based on your overall body of
posts. You have never, to my memory, acknowledged that any photograph
presented in the S-I groups or by links in non-S-I posts have any
merit whatsoever.

On the contrary, I have pointed out many times that a proportion of
the early SIs included some excellent images. Those days have long
gone, however.

My memory of the Shoot-In does not include the earlier days.

The problem your attitude presents is that you set no standard of
acceptability. If nothing is acceptable, then your rating system is
flawed because it doesn't set standards. When you rate everything as
"execrable", without saying what wasn't accomplished or what was done
wrong, the rating is meaningless.


The SI sets no standards.

Yes, exactly.

It sets mandates that are routinely ignored. Submissions that clearly contravene the requirements of the
mandate are routinely included.

If there are no standards (or, more accurately, only loose standards),
then mandates can be followed or ignored and submissions can
contravene requirements. It's a group endeavor, and the people within
the group are quite satisfied with the loose standards. If you are
not in the group, what place is it of yours to criticize the
looseness?

It has been made abundantly clear to me on numerous occasions that:
(1) suggestions for improvement are not something that people
participating in the SI are looking for, and (2) comments are not
welcome from anyone who does not participate, which I never will.

I dunno about that. My own comments have included - sometimes rather
heavy-handed - suggestions for improvement and no one has voiced any
objections. I've seen several other comments that included
suggestions for improvement with no corresponding objections.

Where do you get these ideas?

It is a measure of the depths to which the SI has sunk that, this
time, three images that were not even intended for the SI and did not
relate to the mandate in any way were routinely put up on the SI web
site for all to see. The whole thing is a sick joke.

Bowser is not a judge, here. He's just the technician who does
whatever it takes to move the images from the submission format to the
web page. He's doesn't need to even look at the images to do this, and
isn't responsible for content. The submitter made a mistake.

The judge and I have a great many things in our lives to be happy and
positive about, and we enjoy those things to the full. In that we are
kindred spirits. We waste very little of our time discussing
talentless people and their petty little games.

You spare the judge hearing your views of talentless people, but waste
a great deal of our time by going on-and-on about the subject.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[]
You spare the judge hearing your views of talentless people, but waste
a great deal of our time by going on-and-on about the subject.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Makes me wonder what Bruce's real agenda is here. Why doesn't he submit
some photos to raise the standard, if that's what is needed?

David

On 2011-09-20 23:21:52 -0700, "David J Taylor"
said:

[]
You spare the judge hearing your views of talentless people, but waste
a great deal of our time by going on-and-on about the subject.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Makes me wonder what Bruce's real agenda is here. Why doesn't he
submit some photos to raise the standard, if that's what is needed?

David

I think Bruce's real agenda is to avoid revealing his photographic
skills to be comparatively mediocre as anything submitted by any of the
rest of us. Such a revelation would rapidly have him thrown from his
balking high horse.
He can continue to play this game as long as his real ability remains
hidden from the World.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Bruce
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
snip

On the contrary, I have pointed out many times that a proportion of
the early SIs included some excellent images. Those days have long
gone, however.

Bruce, I'm a newbie here, so I was interested in your assertion that
the SI has gone downhill. It's all there for the last 8 years, so I had
a look.

There are some good shots in the early days. There is also a lot of
rubbish. Some of the early contributors are still contributing. It is
hard to say whether an individual contributor has "improved'. You would
expect change over such a long period regardless. It's hard to make a
sweeping generalisation on such a small sample of one person's work.
Some of the early birds who are no longer seen put some excellent
images up there. Some of the others might have fled in embarrassment.

There is no evidence of the latter part of your assertion "On the
contrary, I have pointed out many times that a proportion of the early
SIs included some excellent images. Those days have long gone,
however."

I do note the weasel worded first sentence however. Why do you bother?

Recent SI's have had some excellent pictures. As far as I can tell, and
I don't claim to be a great photographer or critic, so go ahead and
sneer if it makes you feel superior, some of the very best are very
recent.

Despite your mealy-mouthed sniping, recent comments on the SI's have
been helpful and constructive. Taken together with the pictures they
are useful for someone trying to get better at it.

Your comments about cameras and the industry are very welcome. It would
be great if you would continue to post them. But please consider
whether your sneering about the Shoot-in is increasing your reputation.

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248