[SI] New Mandates

OK, here's the deal: in an attempt to encourage participation, the SI
Dictator has decided to announce multiple mandates with a "capture
date" so you can shoot for multiple mandates, and take more time for
the harder mandates. With that in mind, here's the next three
mandates, all of which have a capture date starting today:

Lines and Intersections: self explanatory. Due March 7th, 2010.

F8 and be the while any phot shot at F8 is acceptable, the hope is
that you'll submit something journalistic, a photo where you were in
the right place at the right time and just fired at will. Due April
11th, 2010

Facescape: a merciless shot of a person's face in high detail. No
animals, building facades, just human beings, please! The human face
is a source of endless interest, so find someone interesting, shoot
them, and show us the results! Due May 16th, 2010.

The shoot-in is located he
http://www.pbase.com/shootin

The rulez are he
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage

I'll have sample shots and galleries posted within a day or two.

On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:23:59 -0500, Bowser wrote:

OK, here's the deal: in an attempt to encourage participation, the SI
Dictator has decided to announce multiple mandates with a "capture
date" so you can shoot for multiple mandates, and take more time for
the harder mandates. With that in mind, here's the next three
mandates, all of which have a capture date starting today:

Lines and Intersections: self explanatory. Due March 7th, 2010.

F8 and be the while any phot shot at F8 is acceptable, the hope is
that you'll submit something journalistic, a photo where you were in
the right place at the right time and just fired at will. Due April
11th, 2010

Facescape: a merciless shot of a person's face in high detail. No
animals, building facades, just human beings, please! The human face
is a source of endless interest, so find someone interesting, shoot
them, and show us the results! Due May 16th, 2010.

The shoot-in is located he
http://www.pbase.com/shootin

The rulez are he
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage

I'll have sample shots and galleries posted within a day or two.


Has Bruce approved of these mandates?


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:42:55 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:23:59 -0500, Bowser wrote:

OK, here's the deal: in an attempt to encourage participation, the SI
Dictator has decided to announce multiple mandates with a "capture
date" so you can shoot for multiple mandates, and take more time for
the harder mandates. With that in mind, here's the next three
mandates, all of which have a capture date starting today:

Lines and Intersections: self explanatory. Due March 7th, 2010.

F8 and be the while any phot shot at F8 is acceptable, the hope is
that you'll submit something journalistic, a photo where you were in
the right place at the right time and just fired at will. Due April
11th, 2010

Facescape: a merciless shot of a person's face in high detail. No
animals, building facades, just human beings, please! The human face
is a source of endless interest, so find someone interesting, shoot
them, and show us the results! Due May 16th, 2010.

The shoot-in is located he
http://www.pbase.com/shootin

The rulez are he
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage

I'll have sample shots and galleries posted within a day or two.


Has Bruce approved of these mandates?

Yes. Bruce and I met and discussed these mandates at length. After
several marathon sessions with heated arguments lasting countless
hours on end, Bruce and I finally agreed on the mandates and capture
dates. The duration of these sessions is why the mandates were late in
coming.

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:08:05 -0500, Bowser wrote:

On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:42:55 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:23:59 -0500, Bowser wrote:

OK, here's the deal: in an attempt to encourage participation, the SI
Dictator has decided to announce multiple mandates with a "capture
date" so you can shoot for multiple mandates, and take more time for
the harder mandates. With that in mind, here's the next three
mandates, all of which have a capture date starting today:

Lines and Intersections: self explanatory. Due March 7th, 2010.

F8 and be the while any phot shot at F8 is acceptable, the hope is
that you'll submit something journalistic, a photo where you were in
the right place at the right time and just fired at will. Due April
11th, 2010

Facescape: a merciless shot of a person's face in high detail. No
animals, building facades, just human beings, please! The human face
is a source of endless interest, so find someone interesting, shoot
them, and show us the results! Due May 16th, 2010.

The shoot-in is located he
http://www.pbase.com/shootin

The rulez are he
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage

I'll have sample shots and galleries posted within a day or two.


Has Bruce approved of these mandates?

Yes. Bruce and I met and discussed these mandates at length. After
several marathon sessions with heated arguments lasting countless
hours on end, Bruce and I finally agreed on the mandates and capture
dates. The duration of these sessions is why the mandates were late in
coming.

Just to let you know, I'm volunteering to verify Bruce's claims that
people who enter the SI can't follow directions. I'm currently
looking for photo opportunities in "Circles and Arcs", "F/16 And
Away", and "Footscape".

With all the criticism heaped on Bruce lately, he deserves to be right
on *something*.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:08:05 -0500, Bowser wrote:
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:42:55 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:
Has Bruce approved of these mandates?
Yes. Bruce and I met and discussed these mandates at length. After
several marathon sessions with heated arguments lasting countless
hours on end, Bruce and I finally agreed on the mandates and capture
dates. The duration of these sessions is why the mandates were late in
coming.


ROTFL!!!

My approval was only reluctantly given, on the basis of a solemn
promise by Bowser that any entries that did not conform to the
requirements of the mandate would not be allowed.

Isn't that right, Bowser? After all, we wouldn't want another
embarrassing fiasco like the last time, now would we?

Bruce-

I truly do hope you'll submit some stuff this time. Then maybe we can
get Alan to shut up about all the past **** he brings up - let's let the
past stay there.

--
john mcwilliams

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 08:36:24 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:08:05 -0500, Bowser wrote:
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:42:55 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:
Has Bruce approved of these mandates?
Yes. Bruce and I met and discussed these mandates at length. After
several marathon sessions with heated arguments lasting countless
hours on end, Bruce and I finally agreed on the mandates and capture
dates. The duration of these sessions is why the mandates were late in
coming.


ROTFL!!!

My approval was only reluctantly given, on the basis of a solemn
promise by Bowser that any entries that did not conform to the
requirements of the mandate would not be allowed.

Isn't that right, Bowser? After all, we wouldn't want another
embarrassing fiasco like the last time, now would we?

Bruce-

I truly do hope you'll submit some stuff this time. Then maybe we can
get Alan to shut up about all the past **** he brings up - let's let the
past stay there.

I really don't care if Bruce submits anything. And, I don't expect
him to. He's put himself out on a limb in the newsgroups, and
allowing us to judge an image of his would be the saw.

What I would like to see is how Bruce would critique the photos he
thinks are crap. I'd like to see how he thinks this one should be
cropped better, how that one should have been shot at a higher or
lower f/stop, or how one could have been better composed. It would be
interesting to see if he actually has an eye for photos.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 2010-02-06 09:28:32 -0800, tony cooper said:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 08:36:24 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:08:05 -0500, Bowser wrote:
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:42:55 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:
Has Bruce approved of these mandates?
Yes. Bruce and I met and discussed these mandates at length. After
several marathon sessions with heated arguments lasting countless
hours on end, Bruce and I finally agreed on the mandates and capture
dates. The duration of these sessions is why the mandates were late in
coming.


ROTFL!!!

My approval was only reluctantly given, on the basis of a solemn
promise by Bowser that any entries that did not conform to the
requirements of the mandate would not be allowed.

Isn't that right, Bowser? After all, we wouldn't want another
embarrassing fiasco like the last time, now would we?

Bruce-

I truly do hope you'll submit some stuff this time. Then maybe we can
get Alan to shut up about all the past **** he brings up - let's let the
past stay there.

I really don't care if Bruce submits anything. And, I don't expect
him to. He's put himself out on a limb in the newsgroups, and
allowing us to judge an image of his would be the saw.

What I would like to see is how Bruce would critique the photos he
thinks are crap. I'd like to see how he thinks this one should be
cropped better, how that one should have been shot at a higher or
lower f/stop, or how one could have been better composed. It would be
interesting to see if he actually has an eye for photos.

Only if it is a "noisy" shot of a train in bad light.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:24:11 +0000, Bruce
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:08:05 -0500, Bowser wrote:
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:42:55 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:

Has Bruce approved of these mandates?

Yes. Bruce and I met and discussed these mandates at length. After
several marathon sessions with heated arguments lasting countless
hours on end, Bruce and I finally agreed on the mandates and capture
dates. The duration of these sessions is why the mandates were late in
coming.


ROTFL!!!

My approval was only reluctantly given, on the basis of a solemn
promise by Bowser that any entries that did not conform to the
requirements of the mandate would not be allowed.

Isn't that right, Bowser? After all, we wouldn't want another
embarrassing fiasco like the last time, now would we?

I thought we discussed this at our committee meeting? Only those that
submit get to complain, correct?

On 2010-02-06 13:46:59 -0800, Bruce said:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 16:38:19 -0500, Bowser wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:24:11 +0000, Bruce
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:08:05 -0500, Bowser wrote:
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:42:55 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:

Has Bruce approved of these mandates?

Yes. Bruce and I met and discussed these mandates at length. After
several marathon sessions with heated arguments lasting countless
hours on end, Bruce and I finally agreed on the mandates and capture
dates. The duration of these sessions is why the mandates were late in
coming.


ROTFL!!!

My approval was only reluctantly given, on the basis of a solemn
promise by Bowser that any entries that did not conform to the
requirements of the mandate would not be allowed.

Isn't that right, Bowser? After all, we wouldn't want another
embarrassing fiasco like the last time, now would we?

I thought we discussed this at our committee meeting? Only those that
submit get to complain, correct?


When it comes to evading the issue of the entries that don't comply
with the mandate, you are the ultimate professional. Obviously, you
were a very good choice to run the SI.

So if people can routinely submit entries that don't comply with the
mandate in one or more major respects, and we still see them on the
SI, why bother with the mandates at all?

I don't expect you to answer that one either. ;-)

It seems the entry which truly doesn't comply, is the one which isn't
submitted. Therefore, given your absence from the SI, other than
bitching, we have yet to see a submission from you which meets any
mandate.

There was certainly a degree of confusion regarding the last mandate,
and those who submitted outside of the strict letter of the 50mm, 35mm,
"normal" concept of the mandate, did so in good faith.
Remember the SI is not some sort of competition with cash prizes &
trophies, there was no cheating per se, so your bitching is a
reflection of some argumentative streak in your character.
Bowser has taken on the running of SI for the enjoyment of those who
participate, not to receive the scorn of somebody such as you who
chooses not to. It seems we should be grateful he does what nobody else
cares to.

....and the mandates are worth bothering with to push us to think
outside of what be normal for each of us. Not every submission should
be considered a gallery exhibition piece, I know mine aren't, but I
have learned from those who submit great shots.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:46:59 +0000, Bruce
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 16:38:19 -0500, Bowser wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:24:11 +0000, Bruce
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:08:05 -0500, Bowser wrote:
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:42:55 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:

Has Bruce approved of these mandates?

Yes. Bruce and I met and discussed these mandates at length. After
several marathon sessions with heated arguments lasting countless
hours on end, Bruce and I finally agreed on the mandates and capture
dates. The duration of these sessions is why the mandates were late in
coming.


ROTFL!!!

My approval was only reluctantly given, on the basis of a solemn
promise by Bowser that any entries that did not conform to the
requirements of the mandate would not be allowed.

Isn't that right, Bowser? After all, we wouldn't want another
embarrassing fiasco like the last time, now would we?

I thought we discussed this at our committee meeting? Only those that
submit get to complain, correct?


When it comes to evading the issue of the entries that don't comply
with the mandate, you are the ultimate professional. Obviously, you
were a very good choice to run the SI.

So if people can routinely submit entries that don't comply with the
mandate in one or more major respects, and we still see them on the
SI, why bother with the mandates at all?

I don't expect you to answer that one either. ;-)

Whether or not the pic fits the mandate is fleshed out in the
critiques. As you know, images are subject to interpretation, and we
all see something different. However, if you are the type of shooter
who must slavishly follow a pre-set visual definition, then the
shoot-in is not for you. It's for people who actually shoot pictures,
submit them, and then see what others think. Clearly, you are one of
the few not suited for the shoot-in.