[SI] Runoff vote for next mandate

On Sun, 06 May 2012 11:52:45 +0200, Pablo wrote:

Savageduck escribió:

I also feel that piggy-backing on an other's comments is just shear
laziness and poor form.

And speaking of laziness, has anyone else noticed that the voting seems
mostly in favour of not having to open one's front door?

OK, I still haven't calmed down, and blew the post I wrote.

I was insulted by your post.

I am partially disabled, and even a 2 hour outdoor trip leaves me
exhausted. Your "laziness" comment is insulting. Given that:

what the Hell is wrong with working in a studio? Phillipe Halsman,
Pete Turner, Irving Penn all used studio setting for light and subject
control! Most outdoor shots are crappy landscapes and Aunt Minnnie's,
as you well know.

In the submissions for the "A" mandate, Savageduck's still life was
one of the best, IMNSHO! Good lighting, nice composition, both in
terms of spatial mass and color mass, and great DOF (I would have done
it differently, tho on the DOF) Nice work, Duck!

If this crew is slanted toward "outdoor" shots (every man a new
Cartier-Bresson), then forget it.

OK, got it off my chest.

Alex

On 2012-05-07 17:34 , Chemiker wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 11:52:45 +0200, Pablo wrote:

Savageduck escribió:

I also feel that piggy-backing on an other's comments is just shear
laziness and poor form.

And speaking of laziness, has anyone else noticed that the voting seems
mostly in favour of not having to open one's front door?

OK, I still haven't calmed down, and blew the post I wrote.

I was insulted by your post.

I am partially disabled, and even a 2 hour outdoor trip leaves me
exhausted. Your "laziness" comment is insulting. Given that:

what the Hell is wrong with working in a studio? Phillipe Halsman,
Pete Turner, Irving Penn all used studio setting for light and subject
control! Most outdoor shots are crappy landscapes and Aunt Minnnie's,
as you well know.

In the submissions for the "A" mandate, Savageduck's still life was
one of the best, IMNSHO! Good lighting, nice composition, both in
terms of spatial mass and color mass, and great DOF (I would have done
it differently, tho on the DOF) Nice work, Duck!

If this crew is slanted toward "outdoor" shots (every man a new
Cartier-Bresson), then forget it.

OK, got it off my chest.

No sweat to me. I haven't got much time these days to go shoot, so I
often satisfy the SI with indoor shots when I can.



--
"A person with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 2012-05-07 14:22:41 -0700, Chemiker said:

On Sun, 06 May 2012 11:52:45 +0200, Pablo wrote:

Savageduck escribió:

I also feel that piggy-backing on an other's comments is just shear
laziness and poor form.

And speaking of laziness, has anyone else noticed that the voting seems
mostly in favour of not having to open one's front door?

OK, I thought about this awhile before I decided to respond.

I am partially disabled, and have very limited mobility. I love
photography., but my wildlife shots are pretty much limited to my back
yard, as are my landscape shots (I especially love the lighting of
fog). I can't walk 2 blocks without becoming exhausted, which does not
help my heart condition.

I do not consider myself lazy, and was very upset when I read this
post.

That aside: What the Hell is wrong with studio photography? Consider:
VerMeer's Girl with a Pearl Earring, and The Milkmaid were NOT painted
out of doors! was Phillipe Halsman a lazy idiot? How about Pete
Turner's tabletop shots? Are Irving Penn's portraits garbage?

AFAIC, most outdoor shots are snapshots of limited beauty. Some
greats, like Cartier-Bresson and Adams, and Steichen, captured not
only content, but also beauty. Most people don't.

Irving Penn often created studios outdoors so he could control the
light better.

OK, got it off my chest. I think we shouldn't focus on content and
ignore beauty. They are not equivalent. Abstracts even take content to
someplace approaching zero.

Savageduck's shot of the artichokes I found very attractive, with
excellent control of both lighting and DOF. I especially like his use
of Tomatoes as a color foil for the green artichoke, on the left side.
It reminded me of a classic I believe was called "pears", in which the
exposure ran hours and thermal expansion/contraction of the camera
softened the edges somewhat like PhotoShop's multiple image layering
to increase depth. well done, Duck.

I have spoken.

Alex

Well Alex, I am glad you got that off your chest. There is certainly
nothing lazy about indoor studio work. However the few remaining SI
contributors seem to bear a heavy burden when it comes to both SI image
and comment content.
There are times I just don't feel up to making any comments. I see not
reason why one of the many unidentified non-participating lurkers, or
one of the vocal critics of the SI couldn't make some comments of
constructive criticism, rather than the snide negativity which appears
from the usual suspects.

Pablo, seems to have a tendency to find some way to make a truly
negative remark at the most awkward time. I am occasionally guilty of
similar behavior. In this case he made a remark with regard to the SI,
and later he admitted he had no idea of what the SI actually was.

Having engaged in some sort of dialog with him, I think he might have a
better idea of the SI now, and we might even see if he decides to throw
his submissions to the wolves who rip the next SI mandate entries apart.

Thanks for your kind comments regarding my artichoke. I actually put a
little thought into that shot and the post processing. It is nice to
get positive feedback from time to time.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck escribió:

Pablo, seems to have a tendency to find some way to make a truly
negative remark at the most awkward time.

What the hell are you talking about? This is usenet. We chat. We say stuff
without thinking "some oversensitive tosser might take offence where there
is clearly none meant".

This group seems to be populated by a load of arse-kissing babies.


Having engaged in some sort of dialog with him, I think he might have a
better idea of the SI now, and we might even see if he decides to throw
his submissions to the wolves who rip the next SI mandate entries apart.

I have thought about it, but I honestly don't think I can bring myself to
get involved in this group. I will say stuff off the cuff, as if I were
stood in a bar chatting. That isn't acceptable here. This is some sort of
club for "special" people.

Thanks for your kind comments regarding my artichoke.

reaches for sick-bag

--
Pablo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
http://paulc.es/piso/index.php

Chemiker escribió:

And speaking of laziness, has anyone else noticed that the voting seems
mostly in favour of not having to open one's front door?

I was insulted by your post.

That's a shame. You're very easily insulted. I don't know how I can insult
someone that I don't even know.

Grow up.

--
Pablo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
http://paulc.es/piso/index.php

On Sun, 06 May 2012 15:37:54 +0200, Pablo wrote:

...that was a one-off. Continuing now to be "disruptive by default".

Kill file in that case.

Eric Stevens escribió:

On Sun, 06 May 2012 15:37:54 +0200, Pablo wrote:

...that was a one-off. Continuing now to be "disruptive by default".

Kill file in that case.

Excellent. I don't propagate massive cross-posts and you don't see my posts.
Everyone's a winner.

--
Pablo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
http://paulc.es/piso/index.php