rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* New Mandate: The Road Less Travelled, Due July 19th, 2009 - 2 messages, 2
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b358cb0f0fb31833?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Mandate: The Road Less Travelled, Due July 19th, 2009
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b358cb0f0fb31833?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 11:21 pm
From: Bob Larter
Critic wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:06:14 -0400, tony cooper
> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 04:45:25 -0500, Critic <critique@someaddress.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:51:48 -0400, tony cooper
>>> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:50:31 -0400, "Bowser" <up@gone.now> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:de619d8b-92d0-4676-bdba-1e7182b7700b@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> A literal interpretation of this mandate will produce a lot of tired,
>>>>>> cliched photographs of dirt roads, walking paths, etc..
>>>>>> The prohibition against archived shots might make this one, "The
>>>>>> Mandate Less Entered."
>>>>> Like most of them now...
>>>>>
>>>>> We tried Filters, and got marginal response. Punography, the mandate many
>>>>> considered to be awful, got 11 entries while Filters, something deemed to be
>>>>> easier, got 18. Wow. I'm at a loss as to how to encourage participation,
>>>>> given my time constraints. Aside from making it completely open week to week
>>>>> with no restriction on archive shots, that is...
>>>>>
>>>> I doubt if there is anything you can do to encourage participation.
>>>> There are posters here who are willing to post their photographs and
>>>> be subjected to praise or criticism, and there are posters here who
>>>> are afraid to do so. The latter group includes some posters who
>>>> natter on and on about the techniques of photography, but never post
>>>> their own work to show that they can actually put those techniques
>>>> into practice. They are usually adamant about being right about
>>>> everything, but won't show the pudding.
>>>
>>> I'll only use my valuable time on critiquing the rare few photographers
>>> that might show a hint of prowess, deserving of a bit of apprenticeship.
>>> ("When the student is ready the teacher will appear.") Otherwise I'm busy
>>> creating my own photography. I let the scrapshooters try to drag themselves
>>> up by their own bootstraps. They'll figure it out someday--or not.
>>>
>>> Most likely not, judging by the dreck that is routinely posted for SI.
>> I am extremely flattered that you took some of your valuable time and
>> read my post. I am practically hugging myself with joy over the fact
>> that you've taken even *more* time and crafted an individual reply to
>> my post.
>
> Finally. One of the multitudes of crapshooter internet-cretins that knows
> their real position in life. About time. You show promise by this alone,
> little of it, but little is better than none.
*Whooosh!*
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 11:48 pm
From: Savageduck
On 2009-06-12 23:21:05 -0700, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com> said:
> Critic wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:06:14 -0400, tony cooper
>> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 04:45:25 -0500, Critic <critique@someaddress.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:51:48 -0400, tony cooper
>>>> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:50:31 -0400, "Bowser" <up@gone.now> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:de619d8b-92d0-4676-bdba-1e7182b7700b@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A literal interpretation of this mandate will produce a lot of tired,
>>>>>>> cliched photographs of dirt roads, walking paths, etc..
>>>>>>> The prohibition against archived shots might make this one, "The
>>>>>>> Mandate Less Entered."
>>>>>> Like most of them now...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We tried Filters, and got marginal response. Punography, the mandate
>>>>>> many considered to be awful, got 11 entries while Filters, something
>>>>>> deemed to be easier, got 18. Wow. I'm at a loss as to how to encourage
>>>>>> participation, given my time constraints. Aside from making it
>>>>>> completely open week to week with no restriction on archive shots, that
>>>>>> is...
>>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt if there is anything you can do to encourage participation.
>>>>> There are posters here who are willing to post their photographs and
>>>>> be subjected to praise or criticism, and there are posters here who
>>>>> are afraid to do so. The latter group includes some posters who
>>>>> natter on and on about the techniques of photography, but never post
>>>>> their own work to show that they can actually put those techniques
>>>>> into practice. They are usually adamant about being right about
>>>>> everything, but won't show the pudding.
>>>>
>>>> I'll only use my valuable time on critiquing the rare few photographers
>>>> that might show a hint of prowess, deserving of a bit of apprenticeship.
>>>> ("When the student is ready the teacher will appear.") Otherwise I'm busy
>>>> creating my own photography. I let the scrapshooters try to drag themselves
>>>> up by their own bootstraps. They'll figure it out someday--or not.
>>>>
>>>> Most likely not, judging by the dreck that is routinely posted for SI.
>>> I am extremely flattered that you took some of your valuable time and
>>> read my post. I am practically hugging myself with joy over the fact
>>> that you've taken even *more* time and crafted an individual reply to
>>> my post.
>>
>> Finally. One of the multitudes of crapshooter internet-cretins that knows
>> their real position in life. About time. You show promise by this alone,
>> little of it, but little is better than none.
>
> *Whooosh!*
I was thinking the same thing myself.
It seems those Phantasy P&S machines lack an irony meter feature.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment