Re: January PUG Comments Part IV
Hi, Frits Wüthrich wrote: > > On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 22:52, mike wilson wrote: > > Frits Wüthrich wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 20:08, mike wilson wrote: > > > > I think the "nature" of the restriction Paul is talking about is nudity, > > > > of Homo sapiens at least. > > > > > > > Yes, I understand that, but I didn't find anything in the submission guidelines > > > about such a restriction. > > > > It's an unwritten one that has been been (very subtly) broken at least > > once. If the basic presumption is that most "art" nudes are terminally > > naff and most "glamour" nudes are unbearably derogatory to women, I, for > > one, don't have a problem with the restriction. Especially as that type > > of photography is difficult to avoid in many other forums on the > > internet. > > > > mike > I have no problem with the restriction, but why don't we have that in the guidelines? > -- If I remember correctly, the guidlines refer only to technical matters of file presentation. Subject matter was (has been regularly) discussed on the list but, so far, it has not been deemed neccessary to write guidelines for it. mike
Re: January PUG Comments Part IV
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 22:52, mike wilson wrote: > Frits Wüthrich wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 20:08, mike wilson wrote: > > > I think the "nature" of the restriction Paul is talking about is nudity, > > > of Homo sapiens at least. > > > > > Yes, I understand that, but I didn't find anything in the submission guidelines > > about such a restriction. > > It's an unwritten one that has been been (very subtly) broken at least > once. If the basic presumption is that most "art" nudes are terminally > naff and most "glamour" nudes are unbearably derogatory to women, I, for > one, don't have a problem with the restriction. Especially as that type > of photography is difficult to avoid in many other forums on the > internet. > > mike I have no problem with the restriction, but why don't we have that in the guidelines? -- Frits Wüthrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: January PUG Comments Part IV
Frits Wüthrich wrote: > > On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 20:08, mike wilson wrote: > > I think the "nature" of the restriction Paul is talking about is nudity, > > of Homo sapiens at least. > > > Yes, I understand that, but I didn't find anything in the submission guidelines > about such a restriction. It's an unwritten one that has been been (very subtly) broken at least once. If the basic presumption is that most "art" nudes are terminally naff and most "glamour" nudes are unbearably derogatory to women, I, for one, don't have a problem with the restriction. Especially as that type of photography is difficult to avoid in many other forums on the internet. mike
Re: January PUG Comments Part IV
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 20:08, mike wilson wrote: > Hi, > > Frits Wüthrich wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 04:37, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > I prefer the trailer parks to the deer because they don't run away . > > > I do some nature photography as well but it's of a nature that's not > > > allowed on the PUG . > > Are there restrictions for the PUG? > > I think the "nature" of the restriction Paul is talking about is nudity, > of Homo sapiens at least. > > mike Yes, I understand that, but I didn't find anything in the submission guidelines about such a restriction. -- Frits Wüthrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: January PUG Comments Part IV
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 04:37, Paul Stenquist wrote: > On Jan 4, 2004, at 5:21 PM, Bill Sawyer wrote: > > > From Paul Stenquist, the > > other Michigan PDMLer, I'm learning to shoot dilapidated trailer > > parks. > > > > > I prefer the trailer parks to the deer because they don't run away . > I do some nature photography as well but it's of a nature that's not > allowed on the PUG . Are there restrictions for the PUG? -- Frits Wüthrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: January PUG Comments Part IV
On Jan 4, 2004, at 5:21 PM, Bill Sawyer wrote: From Paul Stenquist, the other Michigan PDMLer, I'm learning to shoot dilapidated trailer parks. I prefer the trailer parks to the deer because they don't run away . I do some nature photography as well but it's of a nature that's not allowed on the PUG .
Re: January PUG Comments Part IV
What, I have to say nice things about you for you to think I'm cool, Boris? cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Anyway, Frank, be thanked. Your coolness has increased in my eyes ... Boris _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/features&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
RE: January PUG Comments Part IV
Ken, Great trip - I'm jealous! Bring some great shots back with you, I'd like to see some. -Original Message- From: Kenneth Waller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: January 04, 2004 11:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:January PUG Comments Part IV I'll be spending two weeks in Denali this year hoping to improve/add to my Alaskan images.
Re: January PUG Comments Part IV
Frank, Thanks for the comments, I do appreciate the honest feedback. I agree with you wholeheartedly. The two preceding shots are great! And mine is weak. :-( It was a 10 or 12 point wild buck! I just caught a brief glimpse of it. And I'm happy to have any picture of it at all, but it's not a great one. Philosophically, I looked for a recent photo of animals to submit to the PUG. I got this one back on the 19th and scanned it in the store. I take the PUG topics as assignments and try to submit something on topic. Sometimes my submissions aren't great, or even good, but I try. And in the trying, I learn and grow... Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Buck" by Bob Sullivan: Well, Bob, you have the misfortune of following two of the best deer shots I've seen in a long time. I must admit, though, I find too many distractions in your photo to say that it's top notch. The bright green grass is overexposed, the backlit deer is underexposed, the branches and leaves in the foreground distract me. Granted, it's a real tough shot, especially with the exposure difficulties you're presented with. And, like Pat's hawk, earlier, I recognize that shooting in the wild, you grab what you can, when you can, because the deer ain't gonna stand still. I'm not being facetious when I say this would not be a bad illustration of how a deer's natural camoflage works well in the forest. Maybe it's just more that you had the bad luck of being in a great gallery. Sorry, but I gotta be honest. Not a bad shot, just not a great one either.
Re: January PUG Comments Part IV
Frank, Thanks for taking the time to review all the photos in the PUG this month! I have enjoyed it very much to read the points you make about each photo. Also am glad you saw some merit in my photo of the "Bison" on the Yellowstone prairie. I wish I could be there right now, and take photos of bison in the snow. Wonder how the MZ-S would do in -17 deg Fahrenheit? Some photographers I've met didn't enjoy Yellowstone very much, but I think it is an incredibly beautiful place with much to discover. Harald Frank wrote: "Solitary Buffalo" by Harald Rust: One criticism: It's a bison, not a buffalo. That's it (and I'm just joking anyway). After that, I can only praise this beautiful, tranquil scene. Just to show how bad I am at nature shots, I would likely have put the BISON dead centre. You showed that would have been a mistake. I would have likely put in the tops of the trees. By cropping then out (either in the viewfinder or later, I don't know), you ended up putting the horizon in a ~perfect~ place. So many beautiful details, I can't mention all of them, but I love the way the BISON's shadow breaks up the monotony of the yellow grass. Gorgeous shot! __ Do you Yahoo!? Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003 http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
RE: January PUG Comments Part IV
Thank you, Frank - I'm flattered!! Being the photographer, I can nit-pick the shot with such things as I wish the falling snow were more obvious, that I were a few steps to the left, etc. I was deliberately looking to demonstrate the winter coat of these animals, and how that changes their appearance markedly - see this: http://pug.komkon.org/01mar/MarchPUG.html These obviously are semi-tame creatures, allowing an approach to about 30 feet or so - it makes things a whole lot easier. I'm fortunate that two other members of the Michigan PDML, Ken Waller and Mark Cassino, are both excellent Nature Photographers, and trying to keep up with the two of them improves my own photography. From Paul Stenquist, the other Michigan PDMLer, I'm learning to shoot dilapidated trailer parks. And thanks for taking the time to comment on the whole PUG this month - an accomplishment in itself!! -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: January 04, 2004 3:09 PM "Whitetail Deer in the Snow" by Bill Sawyer: When I initially looked at the gallery, scanning through the thumbs, I opened this as soon as I saw it. It just jumped out at me, even as a thumbnail. When I opened it, I wasn't disappointed. Man, you nailed this one, Bill!! Everything is as close to perfect as can be: focus is Right There, composition is gorgeous (that tree in the upper left background, highlighted by the clumps of bright snow, balancing the deer's head on the right - man, it really came together for you, eh? ), beautiful bokeh (but still enough resolution that you can see what the background is), the snow on the animal, it appears to look right into the lens. I could go on and on, but suffice to say, this is one of the best shots this month, in a gallery that has an awful lot of strong images. Wow. Thanks for sharing it with us, Bill.