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

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

Thanks Jim for your enthusiastic leadership.

I agree that the maximum image size should be increased to at least 1024
pixels on the long edge and would be happy up 1600 or so. I don't know
what the pbase limits are. Should we send you a few bucks, Jim, for pbase
fees?

I would strongly suggest that mandators lean to the concrete rather than
the abstract (which does not rule out abstraction of concrete ideas).

I also agree that mandators need to mind the geographic and time-of-year
weather differences of the group.

And I would suggest that several days after the images being posted on
pbase, that each photographer should post a narrative around his photo.

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.

Well, since Alan asked, any size up to 300KB will be taken, after all it's
only space. :-)
Jim

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 19:05:55 -0400, "jimkramer"
wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
. ..

Thanks Jim for your enthusiastic leadership.

I agree that the maximum image size should be increased to at least 1024
pixels on the long edge and would be happy up 1600 or so. I don't know
what the pbase limits are. Should we send you a few bucks, Jim, for pbase
fees?

I would strongly suggest that mandators lean to the concrete rather than
the abstract (which does not rule out abstraction of concrete ideas).

I also agree that mandators need to mind the geographic and time-of-year
weather differences of the group.

And I would suggest that several days after the images being posted on
pbase, that each photographer should post a narrative around his photo.


That's a good idea... it's what the shoot in is about...


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.

Well, since Alan asked, any size up to 300KB will be taken, after all it's
only space. :-)
Jim


A file size limit makes more sense than a picture dimension limit... another
good idea!

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 23:45:45 +1300, Colin_D wrote:



How about you shut it.

Hows about you **** off? You think you own newsnet? You commie pig.

You're new here, aren't you? Smartarse posts
will get you nowhere. Learn or leave.

Learn?? FROM YOU????

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

Take your cell phone cam and **** off, sonny...

wrote:
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 23:45:45 +1300, Colin_D wrote:


How about you shut it.

Hows about you **** off? You think you own newsnet? You commie pig.

You're new here, aren't you? Smartarse posts
will get you nowhere. Learn or leave.

Learn?? FROM YOU????

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

Take your cell phone cam and **** off, sonny...


You really know how to make an ass out of yourself, don't you?

--

from Douglas,
If my PGP key is missing, the
post is a forgery. Ignore it.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH9DKShuxzk5D6V14RAhCdAJ4lgqnpDJGN/qOrhSF+oxQBqNcVxQCdFEbJ
2Qgqj7r0nhHn56VfiDM8iSU=
=BsMN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Apr 2, 1:05*pm, "jimkramer"
wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message

...







Thanks Jim for your enthusiastic leadership.

I agree that the maximum image size should be increased to at least 1024
pixels on the long edge and would be happy up 1600 or so. *I don't know
what the pbase limits are. *Should we send you a few bucks, Jim, for pbase
fees?

I would strongly suggest that mandators lean to the concrete rather than
the abstract (which does not rule out abstraction of concrete ideas).

I also agree that mandators need to mind the geographic and time-of-year
weather differences of the group.

And I would suggest that several days after the images being posted on
pbase, that each photographer should post a narrative around his photo.

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.

Well, since Alan asked, any size up to 300KB will be taken, after all it's
only space. :-)

Of course with a limit of 300KB we can do something like this
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/95080794/original

Scott

"Alienjones" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tony Polson wrote:

|
| The inevitable result is that the dying SI may show a brief spark of
| life, then it will surely die, as it deserves to. There will be a
| brief flurry of enthusiasm, that's all. It might even appear as
| though there is a small revival in progress. But as we all know, the
| flame of a candle burns brightest on the point of dying out.
|

I guess the many years wait to see a Tony Polson original is likely to
become millenniums of wait then is it?

For all your intimate knowledge of equipment - something I've always
recognized - you still haven't produced a public image to suggest you
have the slightest capability to exceed those God awful and highly
memorable "train" photos you put your name to. Maybe someone who
downloaded them is interested in a little plagiarism and might submit
them to the next shootin?

I'd suggest before you continue your abuse of people attempting to get
some feedback on their images, you might let us have a laugh or three at
some of yours. T

he Paris Match thing still looms full in my mind. Perhaps you used a
different name when they published your cover shots? Certainly they have
no knowledge of a "Tonly Polson" ever having been a photographer they
published pictures from. Can you enlighten us?

- --

from Douglas,
If my PGP key is missing, the
post is a forgery. Ignore it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH9AIRhuxzk5D6V14RAiHXAKCIKTyRWDlIHJ+0ROFbit u03mMH+wCgn9pk
S/iYSM62BDnWK5IbcelZ8Ew=
=clGG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

It must be, Douggie didnt put his PGP key on it, and as he says himself

"from Douglas,
If my PGP key is missing, the
post is a forgery. Ignore it."

either that, or the self professed Linux guru doesnt know how to configure
his software properly ??

--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg

Tony Polson wrote:

2) tougher mandates

No, I think abandoning mandates and going for broader themes, or no
themes at all, would be a good idea. Generally, the mandates haven't
worked.

As one opinion. The Mandates worked for me. What I saw as useful
was given a mandate it forced me to summon up alternative approaches
to meeting the mandate and at the same time produce a photo that
stood up to criticism as a photo.

My personal results were varied but I learned a lot from the criticism
and seeing how others interpreted the same mandate. It is this reason that
I have pushed for hard deadlines. The results a lot more interesting (to me)
without the delayed entries.

Regards,

Walter..

On 2008-03-30 21:31:16 -0700, "Ken Nadvornick"
said:

All,

I do not any longer actively follow this NG, for reasons the oldtimers already
know. If you don't, please reread the excellent summation of the situation by
Rich Pos ("That Rich") in the thread "Did The Group Die?". However, I was
alerted to this discussion by someone in the group and asked to give my
thoughts. So FWIW, here they are...

"jimkramer" wrote:

The Shoot-In was developed to "inspire" people to go out and
take pictures around a theme, share them, and discuss them on
RPE35mm. There have been plenty of minor and basically
insignificant changes to that format. That was the intent and
I believe that should remain the intent.

I agree completely. I also agree with the non-competitive aspect of the
exercise. If it turns into a dog-eat-dog competition I believe far fewer
would be inclined to participate. And given the apparent current rate of
non-submissions that could be disastrous. As before, the goal should be
inclusion, not exclusion. It was supposed to be a building exercise, not a
tearing down one. That's why it's an -In and not an -Out.

The recent Mandates have been IMHO a little weak, but that
doesn't mean the photographer that failed to see anything and
didn't submit something wasn't also being a little weak. The
Shoot-In needs better Mandates to work.

Not certain I agree completely here. To be sure, the mandates were sometimes
(often?) outside of people's comfort zones. But that's where the challenge
was. And look back at some of the early mandates. Water. Motion. Six.
Change. Pretty mundane. The difference was the quality of the submissions.
Back then people worked hard at it and it showed. Plus, it was apparent to me
that a repeat few had a real problem with, as Tony P. correctly states,
"working to a brief." Even such nebulous ones. OTOH, brief "briefs" allowed
a far wider range of interpretations. Personally, I always preferred that my
submission's connection to the mandate be as subtle and nebulous as possible.
A puzzle, if you will. Something to be noodled out by the viewer. But that
was just me. And I realize that some others (no names here) didn't like that
approach at all. But it *was* supposed to be just for fun... wasn't it??

The other thing the SI desparately needs are contributors willing to
critique - and do it without abuse. Most people submit because they want to
hear what people think. The serious ones anyway. I saw commenting as the
lifeblood of the exercise. If I remember correctly, the first SI mandate
where no one commented was "Cute." Participation seemed to go downhill from
there.

The Shoot-In needs a group of active participants that are not
involved in flame wars. That means no matter how tempting it is
to call so and so a stupid %#$&^^^!! don't. Get a Newsreader
and use the killfile liberally. If you don't see it you won't be
tempted by it.

For anyone with even a modicum of self-control, this is a piece of cake. I
was always *amazed* at the number of posters who lacked this essential
ingredient in their personalities. To allow someone to drop a baited hook in
front of you and be so undisciplined as to be unable to simply ignore it and
move on was a continuing source of facination to me. While I also
participated in my share of heated arguments* over the years, I think I can
say that I never allowed myself to be drawn into one when I didn't wish to be.
Good Lord. This is Usenet and these are all just words. 10,000 years from
now, who's 'gonna care anyway?

* Just ask Tony P., whom I went several rounds with regarding the quality of
my - and others - SI submissions. But I always continued to hold his
equipment opinions in high regard, even though I strongly disagreed with him
in other areas. In fact, he once gave me quite sound advice regarding a lens
(180mm f/2.8 ED Nikkor telephoto) which factored into my purchase of that
lens. It's now one of my favorites. I'd love to see Tony submit to the SI
sometime. And I'd LOVE to see everyone else treat that submission with
genuine respect. I know I would.

For anyone still using Google Groups and Gmail I highly
recommend the FREE news service: http://news.motzarella.org/
Yes, you will need to give them a real email address, but no
one else needs to see it.

For the record I am filtering out all gmail addresses to control
SPAM.

I filtered no one, other than the porn freaks and commercial posts. Everyone
has a right to an opinion, even ones I don't like. But gratuitous abuse is
where I draw my line. When it gets out of control, I won't filter. I'll just
quietly leave. Besides, in the current situation filtering won't bring back
all of the good people who got disgusted and left.

Frankly I'm working hard on getting SI burn out, so I'm going
to propose going back to a monthly Shoot-Ins. To do that I need
twelve (12) solid mandates. Send them to S I 1 AT jlkramer DOT
net. There should be no spaces and the obvious errors fixed.
And I will need a solid commitment from people to participate.
A clear and concise "Yes, I want to play!"

Funny thing is, Jim, that right before I got fed up I had just dropped about
$4K+ on some pretty serious darkroom and camera upgrades. Things that had
languished for years. The bulk of the darkroom items were upgraded with an
eye specifically toward future submissions to the SI. And the camera upgrade
was a complete Calumet C-1 8x10 system with two lenses (G-Claron normal and
wide angle). I had intended to do as many mandates as possible with this
camera, given its obvious advantages and limitations.

[a fair amount of time elapsed here...]

So OK, after after some rather lengthy offline discussions on this subject
with other NG members, I'll go ahead and bite. If you can scare up another
eleven committed participants, I'm in. If you can change to a monthly
schedule, so much the better. Those who have dabbled in 8x10 will know what I
mean when I say that making a single photograph with this equipment can take
anywhere from an hour or two to a week or two - or longer. On APUG they have
what they call a Monthly Shooting Assignment that they actually run for two
months due, I suspect, to the greater number of large-format users. These Big
Dogs are defintely not for the faint of heart.

If this is too much to ask or if people just don't want to
participate that's fine; the PBase account will expire in August
and that will be the end of it...

My understanding is that someone else from the group has offered offline to
pick up the modest cost for another year of the PBase account. Hell, if all
of the SI participants could only discipline themselves to focus just on
Photography, I'd pick it up myself.

Ken

I just reloaded this group following a period where - for whatever
reason - it would crash my newsreader. I won't waste time by
complaining about the spam and the flames; everybody is dealing with
these aggravations in his own way.

I worked my way through this thread and was really brought up short by
the post to which I am replying, above. I don't know anything about
this gentleman, but I am astonished by the sincerity and reasonable
tone. There is much food for thought here. If only more of the content
could contain insight, clarity and consideration of others, I would
check in every day.

....let me try to drag myself back to the topic: Shoot-In. I guess I'm
less put off by less-than-breathtaking photos, and by criticism that's
below the genius level. My lack of participation does not stem from
either of these. I would hate to see the SI die because it is labeled
"mediocre" by blowhards and permanently-p.o.'d commenters. The perfect
being the enemy of the good, and all that.

I've only sent one submission, and I admit it wasn't worthy of framing
and displaying in a gallery. I don't think that's the standard, is it?
I certainly plan to contribute again.

I'm of two (or more) minds about mandates. First, I think it's a very
good idea to have a sort of assignment, rather than simply "here's my
monthly photo." I also feel coming up with such an assignment is an art
in itself. Just as good critiques require thoughtfulness and
discipline, a good mandate will challenge, inspire and stir the thought
process. As everyone knows, there's a balance to strike between
overly-broud and constricting.

I also lean in favor of requiring shots that were created specifically
for the page in question. Would it be too much hassle to post a mandate
two or three months in advance? I think it might be helpful to be at
least thinking about September's submission, while viewing and
critiquing July's collection.

I was nodding along with Ken's comments about having an oblique
approach to answering the mandate. I love the concept of posing a
puzzle to the viewer. "What does *that* have to do with the theme...oh,
now I geddit!"

I don't think the FUN aspect is the responsibility of Jim Kramer! I
keep drifting back to art school, and the "show and tell" that is the
culmination of every assignment. A good mentor will direct the critique
phase gently but insistently to make sure it's constructive criticism.
Someone who is so fixated on bokeh, or histograms, or JPEG artifacts,
that he never gets around to the non-technical side of observation and
response, needs to be nudged out of "photo engineering" mode. In the
format under discussion here, that's not the job of the host (he has
enough on his plate as it is, and we should be grateful for his
efforts), nor of the moderator (there isn't one).

In short, only the participants themselves can make this thing fun and
rewarding. The rewards can definitely include a strong educational
component, and the fun can so easily be squashed by a tiny minority of
people determined to be unhappy.

Put my name in the "wants to have fun" column.
--
"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know."

"Tully Albrecht" wrote in message
news:2008040309100416807%tullyalbrecht@coxnet...
On 2008-03-30 21:31:16 -0700, "Ken Nadvornick"
said:

All,

I do not any longer actively follow this NG, for reasons the oldtimers
already
know. If you don't, please reread the excellent summation of the
situation by
Rich Pos ("That Rich") in the thread "Did The Group Die?". However, I
was
alerted to this discussion by someone in the group and asked to give my
thoughts. So FWIW, here they are...

"jimkramer" wrote:

The Shoot-In was developed to "inspire" people to go out and
take pictures around a theme, share them, and discuss them on
RPE35mm. There have been plenty of minor and basically
insignificant changes to that format. That was the intent and
I believe that should remain the intent.

I agree completely. I also agree with the non-competitive aspect of the
exercise. If it turns into a dog-eat-dog competition I believe far fewer
would be inclined to participate. And given the apparent current rate of
non-submissions that could be disastrous. As before, the goal should be
inclusion, not exclusion. It was supposed to be a building exercise, not
a
tearing down one. That's why it's an -In and not an -Out.

The recent Mandates have been IMHO a little weak, but that
doesn't mean the photographer that failed to see anything and
didn't submit something wasn't also being a little weak. The
Shoot-In needs better Mandates to work.

Not certain I agree completely here. To be sure, the mandates were
sometimes
(often?) outside of people's comfort zones. But that's where the
challenge
was. And look back at some of the early mandates. Water. Motion. Six.
Change. Pretty mundane. The difference was the quality of the
submissions.
Back then people worked hard at it and it showed. Plus, it was apparent
to me
that a repeat few had a real problem with, as Tony P. correctly states,
"working to a brief." Even such nebulous ones. OTOH, brief "briefs"
allowed
a far wider range of interpretations. Personally, I always preferred
that my
submission's connection to the mandate be as subtle and nebulous as
possible.
A puzzle, if you will. Something to be noodled out by the viewer. But
that
was just me. And I realize that some others (no names here) didn't like
that
approach at all. But it *was* supposed to be just for fun... wasn't it??

The other thing the SI desparately needs are contributors willing to
critique - and do it without abuse. Most people submit because they want
to
hear what people think. The serious ones anyway. I saw commenting as
the
lifeblood of the exercise. If I remember correctly, the first SI mandate
where no one commented was "Cute." Participation seemed to go downhill
from
there.

The Shoot-In needs a group of active participants that are not
involved in flame wars. That means no matter how tempting it is
to call so and so a stupid %#$&^^^!! don't. Get a Newsreader
and use the killfile liberally. If you don't see it you won't be
tempted by it.

For anyone with even a modicum of self-control, this is a piece of cake.
I
was always *amazed* at the number of posters who lacked this essential
ingredient in their personalities. To allow someone to drop a baited
hook in
front of you and be so undisciplined as to be unable to simply ignore it
and
move on was a continuing source of facination to me. While I also
participated in my share of heated arguments* over the years, I think I
can
say that I never allowed myself to be drawn into one when I didn't wish
to be.
Good Lord. This is Usenet and these are all just words. 10,000 years
from
now, who's 'gonna care anyway?

* Just ask Tony P., whom I went several rounds with regarding the quality
of
my - and others - SI submissions. But I always continued to hold his
equipment opinions in high regard, even though I strongly disagreed with
him
in other areas. In fact, he once gave me quite sound advice regarding a
lens
(180mm f/2.8 ED Nikkor telephoto) which factored into my purchase of that
lens. It's now one of my favorites. I'd love to see Tony submit to the
SI
sometime. And I'd LOVE to see everyone else treat that submission with
genuine respect. I know I would.

For anyone still using Google Groups and Gmail I highly
recommend the FREE news service: http://news.motzarella.org/
Yes, you will need to give them a real email address, but no
one else needs to see it.

For the record I am filtering out all gmail addresses to control
SPAM.

I filtered no one, other than the porn freaks and commercial posts.
Everyone
has a right to an opinion, even ones I don't like. But gratuitous abuse
is
where I draw my line. When it gets out of control, I won't filter. I'll
just
quietly leave. Besides, in the current situation filtering won't bring
back
all of the good people who got disgusted and left.

Frankly I'm working hard on getting SI burn out, so I'm going
to propose going back to a monthly Shoot-Ins. To do that I need
twelve (12) solid mandates. Send them to S I 1 AT jlkramer DOT
net. There should be no spaces and the obvious errors fixed.
And I will need a solid commitment from people to participate.
A clear and concise "Yes, I want to play!"

Funny thing is, Jim, that right before I got fed up I had just dropped
about
$4K+ on some pretty serious darkroom and camera upgrades. Things that
had
languished for years. The bulk of the darkroom items were upgraded with
an
eye specifically toward future submissions to the SI. And the camera
upgrade
was a complete Calumet C-1 8x10 system with two lenses (G-Claron normal
and
wide angle). I had intended to do as many mandates as possible with this
camera, given its obvious advantages and limitations.

[a fair amount of time elapsed here...]

So OK, after after some rather lengthy offline discussions on this
subject
with other NG members, I'll go ahead and bite. If you can scare up
another
eleven committed participants, I'm in. If you can change to a monthly
schedule, so much the better. Those who have dabbled in 8x10 will know
what I
mean when I say that making a single photograph with this equipment can
take
anywhere from an hour or two to a week or two - or longer. On APUG they
have
what they call a Monthly Shooting Assignment that they actually run for
two
months due, I suspect, to the greater number of large-format users.
These Big
Dogs are defintely not for the faint of heart.

If this is too much to ask or if people just don't want to
participate that's fine; the PBase account will expire in August
and that will be the end of it...

My understanding is that someone else from the group has offered offline
to
pick up the modest cost for another year of the PBase account. Hell, if
all
of the SI participants could only discipline themselves to focus just on
Photography, I'd pick it up myself.

Ken

I just reloaded this group following a period where - for whatever
reason - it would crash my newsreader. I won't waste time by complaining
about the spam and the flames; everybody is dealing with these
aggravations in his own way.

I worked my way through this thread and was really brought up short by the
post to which I am replying, above. I don't know anything about this
gentleman, but I am astonished by the sincerity and reasonable tone. There
is much food for thought here. If only more of the content could contain
insight, clarity and consideration of others, I would check in every day.

...let me try to drag myself back to the topic: Shoot-In. I guess I'm less
put off by less-than-breathtaking photos, and by criticism that's below
the genius level. My lack of participation does not stem from either of
these. I would hate to see the SI die because it is labeled "mediocre" by
blowhards and permanently-p.o.'d commenters. The perfect being the enemy
of the good, and all that.

I've only sent one submission, and I admit it wasn't worthy of framing and
displaying in a gallery. I don't think that's the standard, is it? I
certainly plan to contribute again.

I'm of two (or more) minds about mandates. First, I think it's a very good
idea to have a sort of assignment, rather than simply "here's my monthly
photo." I also feel coming up with such an assignment is an art in itself.
Just as good critiques require thoughtfulness and discipline, a good
mandate will challenge, inspire and stir the thought process. As everyone
knows, there's a balance to strike between overly-broud and constricting.

I also lean in favor of requiring shots that were created specifically for
the page in question. Would it be too much hassle to post a mandate two or
three months in advance? I think it might be helpful to be at least
thinking about September's submission, while viewing and critiquing July's
collection.

I was nodding along with Ken's comments about having an oblique approach
to answering the mandate. I love the concept of posing a puzzle to the
viewer. "What does *that* have to do with the theme...oh, now I geddit!"

I don't think the FUN aspect is the responsibility of Jim Kramer! I keep
drifting back to art school, and the "show and tell" that is the
culmination of every assignment. A good mentor will direct the critique
phase gently but insistently to make sure it's constructive criticism.
Someone who is so fixated on bokeh, or histograms, or JPEG artifacts, that
he never gets around to the non-technical side of observation and
response, needs to be nudged out of "photo engineering" mode. In the
format under discussion here, that's not the job of the host (he has
enough on his plate as it is, and we should be grateful for his efforts),
nor of the moderator (there isn't one).

In short, only the participants themselves can make this thing fun and
rewarding. The rewards can definitely include a strong educational
component, and the fun can so easily be squashed by a tiny minority of
people determined to be unhappy.

Put my name in the "wants to have fun" column.
--
"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know."

Thank you. You can see Ken's work in some of the earlier Shoot-In
Galleries.
http://www.pbase.com/shootin

Pudentame wrote,on my timestamp of 4/04/2008 3:09 AM:
jimkramer wrote:
"Pudentame" wrote in message
...
Noons wrote:
jimkramer wrote:
For the record I am filtering out all gmail addresses to control SPAM.



Oh boy! Are you filtering out as well all the other
sock puppet addresses from the pool of trolls
that is your pbase site?
That is gonna be a loooooong job...
Nah ... you just gotta update the bozo filter periodically.
Problem is that you replied to the #2 bozo.


I'll be updating the filters again in another week or so. Maybe he'll
make it in there then. or not.

My filtering is primarily for SPAM - the frequent get rich quick, buy
chinese junk wholesale ... and for being boring. That's what got Brett &
his flame wars filtered. They bored the hell out of me. on both sides.

I can reasonably tolerate idiots, just not boring idiots.

Come on, you KNOW that to become completely
acceptable to the pbase troll commmunity
you MUST block out anyone who disagrees
with the disinformation and character
assassination that is mandated by Jimbo
and his cohorts!

Puh-leaze!...