[SI] The Final (again) Fate of the Shoot-In

Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

In http://www.pbase.com/shootin/bound you'll find both abstract (Nick
James) and concrete (most) interpretations of the abstract mandate
"boundaries").

And then there's the punners
Peter Chant's "Bound Dairies" :-)
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/22192160

Definitely some have more imagination than most of us. Or at least me.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Lisa Horton wrote:

Hello again.


Nice to hear from you again, Lisa. Hope you are well.

On Apr 11, 5:26*pm, Lisa Horton wrote:
Hello again.

It's amazing to me that the SI has survived this long. *That it has is a
testament to the power of community. *It was created as a community
building activity, driven by the community of R.P.E.35mm. *The fact that
it continues to exist at all, over four years later, says that the basic
concept holds some level of enduring appeal to this community.

There is a saying, that a man cannot put the same foot in the same river
twice. In the intervening time, both the man and the river have
changed. *Change is life, life is change. *There are some good
suggestions in this thread for positive changes to the SI.

The original pixel limitations for the SI were in the context of what
sorts of monitors people had at the time. *Now, it's difficult to even
find a monitor under 19". *But a lot of people don't have brand new
monitors, many still have 19" screens. *I would think an increase in
pixel size would be appropriate, but a limited increase. *I would think
something along the lines of 1024x768 would fit on the vast majority of
screens, without being too small for the mega monitor crowd.

Didn't we start with monthly mandates originally? *For people with
lives, jobs, even families, a month seems a reasonable time frame. *A
longer mandate gives people more time to do the really hard part of
making a photograph: thinking. *I used to spend far more time thinking
about how to meet the mandate than actually producing the photograph.

As for ratings, I don't think they support the concept of the SI, an
adamantly non competitive activity. *Yes, it means that an execrable
photo may not get the lambasting it deserves, but... *People either want
to improve and get better, or they don't. *

I think that the mandates are a key part of the SI. *But, as has been
pointed out, it takes thought to create a good mandate. *One that isn't
too vague, but also not too specific. *The best mandates strike a
balance between being vague and specific. * *As a suggestion to
mandators, consider making your mandate two parts. *A short concise
sentence, then a short paragraph explaining the mandate in more detail.


Does this mean you are participating Lisa? It would be a pleasure if
you graced the group once again.
Helen

Helen wrote:

Does this mean you are participating Lisa? It would be a pleasure if
you graced the group once again.


How would you know, Helen?

It isn't as if you were contributing to this newsgroup when Lisa was.
The gap between Lisa leaving and you arriving must be at least a
couple of years.

Hello again.

It's amazing to me that the SI has survived this long. That it has is a
testament to the power of community. It was created as a community
building activity, driven by the community of R.P.E.35mm. The fact that
it continues to exist at all, over four years later, says that the basic
concept holds some level of enduring appeal to this community.

There is a saying, that a man cannot put the same foot in the same river
twice. In the intervening time, both the man and the river have
changed. Change is life, life is change. There are some good
suggestions in this thread for positive changes to the SI.


The original pixel limitations for the SI were in the context of what
sorts of monitors people had at the time. Now, it's difficult to even
find a monitor under 19". But a lot of people don't have brand new
monitors, many still have 19" screens. I would think an increase in
pixel size would be appropriate, but a limited increase. I would think
something along the lines of 1024x768 would fit on the vast majority of
screens, without being too small for the mega monitor crowd.

Didn't we start with monthly mandates originally? For people with
lives, jobs, even families, a month seems a reasonable time frame. A
longer mandate gives people more time to do the really hard part of
making a photograph: thinking. I used to spend far more time thinking
about how to meet the mandate than actually producing the photograph.

As for ratings, I don't think they support the concept of the SI, an
adamantly non competitive activity. Yes, it means that an execrable
photo may not get the lambasting it deserves, but... People either want
to improve and get better, or they don't.

I think that the mandates are a key part of the SI. But, as has been
pointed out, it takes thought to create a good mandate. One that isn't
too vague, but also not too specific. The best mandates strike a
balance between being vague and specific. As a suggestion to
mandators, consider making your mandate two parts. A short concise
sentence, then a short paragraph explaining the mandate in more detail.

On Apr 11, 5:21*pm, Tony Polson wrote:
Helen wrote:

Does this mean you are participating Lisa? *It would be a pleasure if
you graced the group once again.

How would you know, Helen? *

It isn't as if you were contributing to this newsgroup when Lisa was.
The gap between Lisa leaving and you arriving must be at least a
couple of years.


I have heard so much about her, and I researched the archives as
well.

Helen wrote:

On Apr 11, 5:21*pm, Tony Polson wrote:
Helen wrote:

Does this mean you are participating Lisa? *It would be a pleasure if
you graced the group once again.

How would you know, Helen? *

It isn't as if you were contributing to this newsgroup when Lisa was.
The gap between Lisa leaving and you arriving must be at least a
couple of years.


I have heard so much about her, and I researched the archives as
well.


In that case, it seems odd, to say the least, that you did not
introduce yourself first - before launching into your question.

Strange. Very strange.

On Apr 11, 5:43*pm, Tony Polson wrote:
Helen wrote:
On Apr 11, 5:21*pm, Tony Polson wrote:
Helen wrote:

Does this mean you are participating Lisa? *It would be a pleasure if
you graced the group once again.

How would you know, Helen? *

It isn't as if you were contributing to this newsgroup when Lisa was.
The gap between Lisa leaving and you arriving must be at least a
couple of years.

I have heard so much about her, and I researched the archives as
well.

In that case, it seems odd, to say the least, that you did not
introduce yourself first - before launching into your question.

Strange. *Very strange.


I don't understand why you think my question to the founder, or one of
the founders, to the SI to be strange. I didn't know an introduction
was required, as I have never seen it on rpe35mm. I was merely
pleasantly surprised to see Lisa's name.
Do you have a problem with that or with me for that matter?
If we are to encourage people to come back to the SI, I think we need
to be a kinder more pleasant group focused on photography........don't
you?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tony Polson wrote:
| Helen wrote:
|
| On Apr 11, 5:21 pm, Tony Polson wrote:
| Helen wrote:
|
| Does this mean you are participating Lisa? It would be a pleasure if
| you graced the group once again.
| How would you know, Helen?
|
| It isn't as if you were contributing to this newsgroup when Lisa was.
| The gap between Lisa leaving and you arriving must be at least a
| couple of years.
|
| I have heard so much about her, and I researched the archives as
| well.
|
|
| In that case, it seems odd, to say the least, that you did not
| introduce yourself first - before launching into your question.
|
| Strange. Very strange.
|

Tony...
I thought you had at least a grain of intelligence but now I'm wondering...

Helen is Bret, despite his continued assertion he is not, he actually
is. Many, many times he's slipped up and this is just another incident
where his poor memory exposes his masquerade. Who else would make such
glowing reports of such terrible photography than the sock invented to
do just that?

More importantly... There is mounting evidence!

Don't be surprised to discover it was this joker who drove Lisa away in
the first place with all that foul and disgusting language...

Just like he portrays pictorially when he posts his porn over my wife's
web site's photos and the disgusting number he's trying to do on noons
and his daughter for expecting him to recognize a country's exclusive
group (aus.photo) and stay out of it.

And when he finally got control of shootin from the biggest bigot all???
He couldn't handle it! ROTFL. What a joke!

Get up to speed on reading network information and how to run traces
past ISPs proxy servers mate or he might own you if you don't wise up
real quick. Helen indeed! And to come up with a jewish name, blast the
**** out of anyone making an anti Zionist remark and a year later deny
any links to jews. All that solitary confinement and home brew must have
corroded his brain cells if he thinks anyone falls for his bull****.

- --

from Douglas,
If my PGP key is missing, the
post is a forgery. Ignore it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFH/+y+huxzk5D6V14RAvhKAJ4salYh1OeJfQcxp6zjJKxBuDQ9HQC eMXb3
SKHCF5gXZyCxXk+o13AN8OU=
=pfnP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Lisa Horton" wrote in message
...
Hello again.

It's amazing to me that the SI has survived this long. That it has is a
testament to the power of community. It was created as a community
building activity, driven by the community of R.P.E.35mm. The fact that
it continues to exist at all, over four years later, says that the basic
concept holds some level of enduring appeal to this community.

There is a saying, that a man cannot put the same foot in the same river
twice. In the intervening time, both the man and the river have
changed. Change is life, life is change. There are some good
suggestions in this thread for positive changes to the SI.


The original pixel limitations for the SI were in the context of what
sorts of monitors people had at the time. Now, it's difficult to even
find a monitor under 19". But a lot of people don't have brand new
monitors, many still have 19" screens. I would think an increase in
pixel size would be appropriate, but a limited increase. I would think
something along the lines of 1024x768 would fit on the vast majority of
screens, without being too small for the mega monitor crowd.

Didn't we start with monthly mandates originally? For people with
lives, jobs, even families, a month seems a reasonable time frame. A
longer mandate gives people more time to do the really hard part of
making a photograph: thinking. I used to spend far more time thinking
about how to meet the mandate than actually producing the photograph.

As for ratings, I don't think they support the concept of the SI, an
adamantly non competitive activity. Yes, it means that an execrable
photo may not get the lambasting it deserves, but... People either want
to improve and get better, or they don't.

I think that the mandates are a key part of the SI. But, as has been
pointed out, it takes thought to create a good mandate. One that isn't
too vague, but also not too specific. The best mandates strike a
balance between being vague and specific. As a suggestion to
mandators, consider making your mandate two parts. A short concise
sentence, then a short paragraph explaining the mandate in more detail.

Thank you,
Jim Kramer