If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] I miss...
"The Dave©" wrote:
Yet, in the time it took to write that post, you could've sent in an archive shot showing all of us just how "great" of a photographer you really are. I'm not a great photographer, and probably never will be. But I do work hard to improve. The SI participants, on the other hand, seem to revel in their sheer collective mediocrity to the extent that the SI just gets worse every time. It wasn't always so; some of the shots for the first few SIs were excellent, and others showed great promise. But the capable contributors left, and those left behind have truly lost the plot. "Sabineellen" at least had the courage to state that the last crop of nonsense had largely missed the point. Maybe this is a turning point and the SI will at last start to improve? But it won't improve if so many of the participants continue to treat a brief with such contempt as they did this time. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] I miss...
Alan Browne wrote:
Won't happen for the simplest of reasons: He has NOTHING to show. As I have said many times, I have nothing to show to you, Alan. If you had a shred of ability as a photographer, I might respect your opinions, but as your contributions to the SI clearly show, you don't. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] I miss...
Alan Browne wrote:
BTW, pick up a copy of National Geographic. Show where most of the images, most especially those illustrating culture, are not accompanied by narrative or explanation. Where does it say in the SI brief "shoot a photo to illustrate an article about ....."? I'd like to know, because to me it is clear that the SI is about photos that tell a story. Pictures that might speak a thousand words, or merely convey a simple message. But you treat the SI with contempt. You make absolutely no effort to satisfy the brief. You take the same old Alan Browne type of crap snapshot, and the you have the barefaced cheek to try to pass it off as something related to the brief by writing as much boring prose as you think will get you off the hook. "Local Culture"? For once, this was actually a well written brief, and what do you do? You turn out a snapshot of a house and then proceed to explain in the most enormous detail a message that your shot so signally failed to convey. Face up to it, Alan, you can't hack it, and every SI you enter merely reinforces the point. But you think you're simply *wonderful*, and therein lies the problem. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] I miss...
TP wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: BTW, pick up a copy of National Geographic. Show where most of the images, most especially those illustrating culture, are not accompanied by narrative or explanation. Where does it say in the SI brief "shoot a photo to illustrate an article about ....."? Where does it say not to? I'd like to know, because to me it is clear that the SI is about photos that tell a story. Pictures that might speak a thousand words, or merely convey a simple message. Since you do not participate in the SI, your opinion and beliefs about what "the SI is about" is hardly relevant. The SI is for and by the participants and therefore as a non-participating sideline yapper, you really cannot hold any opinion about it that I (and many others) will bother to respect. You can of course change that by posting in reply to the SI. But you treat the SI with contempt. You make absolutely no effort to satisfy the brief. You take the same old Alan Browne type of crap snapshot, and the you have the barefaced cheek to try to pass it off as something related to the brief by writing as much boring prose as you think will get you off the hook. As some SI participants do, and I usually do, I post some information about the photos I take. I've done this on about half of the submissions. "Local Culture"? For once, this was actually a well written brief, and what do you do? You turn out a snapshot of a house and then proceed to explain in the most enormous detail a message that your shot so signally failed to convey. If so well written why didn'y you submit a photo TP? You are such a fake, it is beyond laughable. Face up to it, Alan, you can't hack it, and every SI you enter merely reinforces the point. But you think you're simply *wonderful*, and therein lies the problem. Horse manure, TP. You can twist, and you can turn, but until you post images you are nothing but a mongrel yapping and making noise. I never made claims about any of my images in any regard. You have THE problem not me. There is one solution: post your photography. Of course you DID post some photos a few years ago, and you were laughed at for it, weren't you? |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] I miss...
TP wrote in
: Alan Browne wrote: BTW, pick up a copy of National Geographic. Show where most of the images, most especially those illustrating culture, are not accompanied by narrative or explanation. Where does it say in the SI brief "shoot a photo to illustrate an article about ....."? I'd like to know, because to me it is clear that the SI is about photos that tell a story. Pictures that might speak a thousand words, or merely convey a simple message. You might actually be interested in knowing that National Geographic was exactly what I had in mind when I wrote the mandate, and my wording is pretty clear about it. But you treat the SI with contempt. You make absolutely no effort to satisfy the brief. You take the same old Alan Browne type of crap snapshot, and the you have the barefaced cheek to try to pass it off as something related to the brief by writing as much boring prose as you think will get you off the hook. "Local Culture"? For once, this was actually a well written brief, and what do you do? You turn out a snapshot of a house and then proceed to explain in the most enormous detail a message that your shot so signally failed to convey. While I don't really feel you, Tony, would take the slightest bit of time to absorb this, there are other people reading these posts, so I'm going to take the opportunity to address this point. And I've said this all before, too... The Shoot-In is an opportunity to try your hand at an assignment, not your own specialty. It gives a deadline, and it varies widely. Those that want the challenge can take it - those that either don't want to, or got a photo that they don't feel is up to snuff, don't have to submit. There's no pressure to perform. Some participants, yours truly among them and I more than suspect Alan as well, make it a point to submit as often as possible. They treat it as a greater challenge, not to shy away from any topic, no matter what. And they duly take the comments that come up when their images don't necessarily cut it. From my own standpoint, it's one of the reasons I encourage commentary - I actually WANT to hear detailed opinions about what I submit. I know I can't be perfectly objective - I have to rely on other people to provide this. And a very valid point, one that you have absolutely no hope of understanding: It's tougher than it looks. Taking whatever free time you have and trying to fulfill a mandate to the overall satisfaction not only of yourself, but of others as well, is no easy task. You'll never comprehend this until you're doing it yourself. For several mandates, I knew exactly what I wanted to get - getting it was another matter entirely. For others, I'm often at a loss. What results is not what I would consider a great example of the mandate - it only represents *what I was able to achieve given the conditions*. This might mean time, weather, subject opportunities, and yes, even my skills and ability to interpret it correctly. But you know what? I submit it anyway, and make it a point to avoid archive shots as well - I have a significant stock of images and can meet quite a few mandates by resorting to that. That's not a challenge. Thus, believe it or not, the people actually submitting probably deserve your respect, because they dare to stick their work out into the open and let it be judged, right up there next to the mandate itself. And each and every one of them, regardless of my commentary, has *my* respect. And you, Tony, do not. Face up to it, Alan, you can't hack it, and every SI you enter merely reinforces the point. But you think you're simply *wonderful*, and therein lies the problem. At no point has Alan, or indeed most of the people on this newsgroup, ever demonstrated anything that could even remotely be considered 'ego'. So I suspect your ability to gauge people lies about on a par with your other demonstrated abilities... Meanwhile, I'm getting an enormous kick out of the amount of posts you're making regarding the SI, which I shouldn't need to remind you was this remarkably off-topic pursuit that you were so dead set against. It's truly gratifying to know that we hold every last shred of your attention. So thank you, TP. You've drawn more attention to this than any polite request for submissions possibly could have. And this comes from someone who watches the hit counts on the site, too. http://www.pbase.com/shootin, for anyone else who needs to know ;-) - Al. -- To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] I miss...
TP wrote in
: Al Denelsbeck wrote: It's Monday, Tony. How can you be spending so much of your valuable time on the newsgroup without your briefs falling down? I only "spend time" on this newsgroup while I'm doing something else on the PC ... ... whether I am waiting for scans, waiting for prints, waiting for emails with huge binary attachments, watching you and your buddies discuss your irrelevant consumer-grade snapshots is an amusing way to spend time I would otherwise waste. Maybe you should be working on those extensive lens tests, they seem to be dragging out. Or continuing your road tour in the fried-out combie. I should thank you for posting your crapshots, sorry snapshots. You're very welcome! I like to think I've made it easy for anyone to come in and wow us with their far superior work, but alas... - Al. -- To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] I miss...
Al Denelsbeck wrote:
Some participants, yours truly among them and I more than suspect Alan as well, make it a point to submit as often as possible. They treat it as a greater challenge, not to shy away from any topic, no matter what. So Alan Browne "doesn't shy away from any topic, no matter what"? I have yet to see Alan Browne take an SI topic seriously. He just finds one of his very limited range of formula shots (his gamut runs from A to A) and submits that instead. He is just taking the ****. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] I miss...
TP wrote:
Al Denelsbeck wrote: Some participants, yours truly among them and I more than suspect Alan as well, make it a point to submit as often as possible. They treat it as a greater challenge, not to shy away from any topic, no matter what. So Alan Browne "doesn't shy away from any topic, no matter what"? I have yet to see Alan Browne take an SI topic seriously. He just finds one of his very limited range of formula shots (his gamut runs from A to A) and submits that instead. He is just taking the ****. Review all my shots v. the mandate and restate. I understand your vindictiveness towards me TP. It is natural as I have been "calling you out" for so long. It is natural that you feel bitter and lash out. I understand completely. The facts a --You almost never originate threads (oh, the odd link to an article maybe). Instead you either jump in with oft repeated comments about the very narrow range of equipment that you know; or to soundly criticize and/or insult other posters. (This is the ironic part: you are often right, but you couch it in such mean terms regarding the OP that people are immediately offended.) --You refuse to post any images backing up your claims as a professional photographer who shoots 50 rolls per average *week*. Yet you wax on about "waiting for scans". It can't be *that* difficult to post one or two. I'll donate the webspace for it if you like. --When anyone points out your mean and petty spirit they become targets for your most acid character. Frankly, you are a joke. Even the few regular posters in this NG who feel some kind of kinship with you have become alienated from you. They have come to realize that you are not what you purport to be. Pretty sad situation. -- --e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] I miss...
Alan Browne wrote:
Review all my shots v. the mandate and restate. I have. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] I miss...
TP wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: Review all my shots v. the mandate and restate. I have. Answer the rest of the post, coward. -- --e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[SI] Bowser's Funny Shot | Deathwalker | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | June 17th 04 06:14 PM |
[SI] Make Me Laugh, comments from Al | Ken Nadvornick | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | June 14th 04 10:27 PM |
[SI] WEB SITE FOR PHOTO CONTEST | street shooter | Film & Labs | 0 | November 9th 03 03:19 AM |
Photo Contest [SI] and Reviews | Photo Judge | Film & Labs | 7 | November 6th 03 04:44 PM |