[SI] Last 90 is posted and ready for viewing!

On 10/30/10 7:40 AM, in article ,
"Robert Coe" wrote:

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:52:36 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:
:
: Question: Do any roads lead OUT of Boston (besides the tollroad to
: Logan?)???

Of course. It's not that such roads don't exist; it's just that we don't tell
you how to find them. The attitude towards road signs in Massachusetts has
generally been that our road system is so confusing that signs wouldn't help
an outsider much. And since most locals already know their way around, why
bother? In most of the state you can drive for miles along a major street
without discovering its name, because the street signs give the names of the
more minor intersecting streets only.

That system sort of functions, except when major roads or bridges are closed
for construction. Where in other cities you may see a DETOUR sign, the more
common instruction in Massachusetts is SEEK ALTERNATE ROUTE. There's actually
a certain humor in that, unless you happen to be in an area where you have no
idea where any alternate routes are.

BTW, you can get to and from the airport without paying a toll, although the
route is circuitous and slow. And there are two subway/bus routes to the
airport that are cheaper, and often much quicker, than driving.

Bob

I know that the locals did that on purpose to confuse the Yankee fans and
keep them away from Fenway.

BTW: Is there room for my Alamo rental car on that bus?

On 2010-10-30 08:32:49 -0700, Pete said:

On 2010-10-30 15:32:32 +0100, peter said:

Mystery adds to fascination. Most women look better in clothes than naked.

Unfortunately.

Hence the burqa.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2010-10-30 08:18:38 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 22:06:46 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2010-10-29 14:49:06 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-10-29 16:56 , Russell D. wrote:

I, too, wasn't too enthused about the white space but I think mostly
because I was interested in the sculpture (a shepherd?) and wanted more
of it. I hadn't even noticed the soft shadow on the wall. Going back an
looking at it again I think I appreciate better what you were after. It
is definitely an appealing photograph.

Thanks. Here is the shepherd (cropped from the same image).
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/11871418-md.jpg

Much better.
The original was buried in bland, now it is a great shot worthy of the
title, "favorite."

Horses for courses, but I liked the original better. This close-up is
a good photograph of someone else's artistic work. The original was a
Alan's artistic approach to this piece of work.

The Shoot-In isn't an exercise in documentary photography. There's a
place for that, but what we're doing here is demonstrating the
photographer's ability to see, frame, and process a subject. The
original was pure Alan Browne. His later commentary explained what he
was trying to do with shadow and color using that piece of art as a
starting-off point. This close-up is just a technically sound
replication of what someone else has created.

If the purpose of the close-up was to demonstrate Alan's ability to
take a photograph of an artwork for inclusion in a glossy brochure to
promote the artist, I'd look at it differently. That was not the
purpose for the original, although it could be a good cover shot for
an exhibit in general.

OK! I get it.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2010-10-30 16:47:25 +0100, Savageduck said:

On 2010-10-30 08:32:49 -0700, Pete said:

On 2010-10-30 15:32:32 +0100, peter said:

Mystery adds to fascination. Most women look better in clothes than naked.

Unfortunately.

Hence the burqa.

And Viagra.

On 10/30/2010 12:09 PM, Pete wrote:
On 2010-10-30 16:47:25 +0100, Savageduck said:

On 2010-10-30 08:32:49 -0700, Pete
said:

On 2010-10-30 15:32:32 +0100, peter said:

Mystery adds to fascination. Most women look better in clothes than
naked.

Unfortunately.

Hence the burqa.

And Viagra.

As Gabriel Kaplan said after taking Viagra" 'Welcome back Kotter."

--
Peter

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:00:30 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
: On 2010-10-30 07:20:47 -0700, Alan Browne
: said:
:
: On 10-10-30 1:06 , Savageduck wrote:
: On 2010-10-29 14:49:06 -0700, Alan Browne
: said:
:
: On 10-10-29 16:56 , Russell D. wrote:
:
: I, too, wasn't too enthused about the white space but I think mostly
: because I was interested in the sculpture (a shepherd?) and wanted more
: of it. I hadn't even noticed the soft shadow on the wall. Going back an
: looking at it again I think I appreciate better what you were after. It
: is definitely an appealing photograph.
:
: Thanks. Here is the shepherd (cropped from the same image).
: http://gallery.photo.net/photo/11871418-md.jpg
:
: Much better.
: The original was buried in bland, now it is a great shot worthy of the
: title, "favorite."
:
: First off, the original is the photo as I wanted to take it - as
: someone first approaches the work.
:
: That was my reasoning for the Bugatti shot.
:
:
: brag ahead Thankfully the combination of the Carl Zeiss 135 f/1.8
: and Sony a900 allowed extracting the sculpture from the photo for
: Russell's interest /brag.
:
: Secondly, none of the photos I put up (save perhaps the hands and
: lathe) is a "favourite" - I confess to mandate stuffing for the purpose
: of participation.
:
: Ah! Ha! Ballot stuffing!

As an honest confession is good for the soul, I shall tell you up-front and in
advance: One of my "nighttime" shots was not shot at night!

Bob

"Pete" wrote in message
news:2010103016324938866-availableonrequest@aserverinvalid...
On 2010-10-30 15:32:32 +0100, peter said:

Mystery adds to fascination. Most women look better in clothes than
naked.

Unfortunately.

That's certainly true here in the Northern climates......If they didn't have
any clothes on, they wouldn't be visible at all..:^)

On 2010-11-02 09:04:13 -0700, Annika1980 said:

I wasn't aware of this mandate or I might have submitted this one.

http://bretdouglas.smugmug.com/Sport...158_cfPcD-L-LB

Nice,

but, …um, what were you smoking? That stuff can effect your short term memory.
Bowser is doing the mandates in batches of three at a time. Your
attention span seems to be getting shorter.

Anyway, you should have some good night shots ready for the next SI on
November 21.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 09:04:13 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980
wrote:
: I wasn't aware of this mandate or I might have submitted this one.
:
: http://bretdouglas.smugmug.com/Sport...158_cfPcD-L-LB

Well, you could save it for "Night Shots". It's not obvious that it was a
night shot, but it plausibly could have been.

You've gotta start keeping up. Over the years you've submitted some of the
Shoot-In's best pictures, and we've missed you.

Bob

On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 17:18:47 +0000, Bruce
wrote:

Robert Coe wrote:
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 09:04:13 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980
wrote:
: I wasn't aware of this mandate

You've gotta start keeping up. Over the years you've submitted some of the
Shoot-In's best pictures, and we've missed you.


There is quite a long list of able photographers who no longer
contribute to the SI.

If you want the SI ever to be more than the laughing stock it has
become, you all should now address why it is that so many able
photographers have left the SI and why it is that the SI has not been
able to attract photographers of comparable ability to replace them.

There is no shortage of able photographers who contribute and share
their work to other online forums and web sites. You all should now
address why the SI is so very unattractive to these people.

Alternatively, you can continue as you are. The SI provides
photography students the world over with an object lesson in how
rejecting mutual improvement as a core objective has led to a regular
festival of mediocrity (and worse).

The SI's participants carefully praise each other's execrable
snapshots but avoid recognising the few, occasional flashes of ability
- presumably to deter those submitting them from responding to next
month's so-called "mandate". Therein lies the problem.

Same-old, same-old, from you. You don't bother to contribute or to
critique the actual submissions but bitch and moan in general.
Nothing positive or useful from you.

The SI doesn't attract more submissions because it is a
newsgroup-centric effort with exposure limited only to readers of the
newsgroup. The same photographers who have left the SI have stopped
reading the newsgroup. Not because of the SI, though.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida