[SI] XXXV (old stuff) Alan's comments

Brian C. Baird wrote:

In article ,
says...

Please, more like 1/250th of a second capturing the photo, 1 minute in
Photoshop. Give me some credit!

Brian + 2 credits.


RP©


Is that in C-Notes or gold doubloons?

A discount certificate for "Photography for Dummies, Vol. II:
Getting out of the car and composing the shot."

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Colin D wrote:

Perhaps I'm a bit too much of a purist here.

Nah.


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Colin D wrote:

Perhaps I'm a bit too much of a purist here.

Nah.


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Ken Nadvornick wrote:

On the other hand, if the problem here is that some SI participants want to
change the Rulz to simply cut down or eliminate entirely any digitally
captured or manipulated images, then that is another story entirely. But
until those changes are put into place, just not liking Brian's digital
technique - which, I'm sorry, is a simulation of what can easily be
performed using "traditional photographic processes" - seems to me to be
insufficient grounds for the abuse being heaped on him for a simple photo
submission.

See McLeod's post on the subject (and others), desaturating a
print in the manner at issue is neither common, easy or
traditional in the color darkroom.

And again, I really don't care if anyone does anything in PS for
an SI submission, but to defend it as being in compliance with
the interntion fo the rulz is another matter.

Finally, it's worth noting that the last sentence of the original Rulz also
states, "No big deal, just for fun." When I see someone being bullied over
something as silly as a photo, that's when I can't not step in and get
involved.

It's not bullying, it's just pointing out where the boundary is.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Ken Nadvornick wrote:

On the other hand, if the problem here is that some SI participants want to
change the Rulz to simply cut down or eliminate entirely any digitally
captured or manipulated images, then that is another story entirely. But
until those changes are put into place, just not liking Brian's digital
technique - which, I'm sorry, is a simulation of what can easily be
performed using "traditional photographic processes" - seems to me to be
insufficient grounds for the abuse being heaped on him for a simple photo
submission.

See McLeod's post on the subject (and others), desaturating a
print in the manner at issue is neither common, easy or
traditional in the color darkroom.

And again, I really don't care if anyone does anything in PS for
an SI submission, but to defend it as being in compliance with
the interntion fo the rulz is another matter.

Finally, it's worth noting that the last sentence of the original Rulz also
states, "No big deal, just for fun." When I see someone being bullied over
something as silly as a photo, that's when I can't not step in and get
involved.

It's not bullying, it's just pointing out where the boundary is.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

So we've gone from "The Rulz" to "the interntion fo the rulz "?
What are they?

--
Colm


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .

And again, I really don't care if anyone does anything in PS for
an SI submission, but to defend it as being in compliance with
the interntion fo the rulz is another matter.

So we've gone from "The Rulz" to "the interntion fo the rulz "?
What are they?

--
Colm


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .

And again, I really don't care if anyone does anything in PS for
an SI submission, but to defend it as being in compliance with
the interntion fo the rulz is another matter.

That may come across not quite as intended.
Let me rephrase... How are we to know the intentions of the rulz? It seems
that everyone has a different take, so what's the definitive source?

--
Colm


"Colm" wrote in message
...
So we've gone from "The Rulz" to "the interntion fo the rulz "?
What are they?

That may come across not quite as intended.
Let me rephrase... How are we to know the intentions of the rulz? It seems
that everyone has a different take, so what's the definitive source?

--
Colm


"Colm" wrote in message
...
So we've gone from "The Rulz" to "the interntion fo the rulz "?
What are they?

Colm wrote:

That may come across not quite as intended.
Let me rephrase... How are we to know the intentions of the rulz? It seems
that everyone has a different take, so what's the definitive source?

My interpretation is that the intention is to have fun and be
entertained. All the other rulz are merely suggestions. If that means
ignoring all the pickle-up-their-arse nay-sayers who offer little in the
way of *constructive* criticism, then so be it. I submit what pleases
me, I gratefully accept suggestions for improvement, I freely admit that
offering my own criticism has never been one of my strong points, and I
just ignore all the rest.