[SI] Mandate Due Dates

On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 12:05:02 +1100, "Atheist Chaplain"
wrote:


"Bowser" wrote in message
m...
In my haste I neglected to include the due dates for the new mandates.
They a

Bad Travel Shots: January 30th
The Letter M: February 27th
Hands/Feet: March 3rd

Luckily, the Shoot-In Advisory Board Team Group Committee Assembly has
seen fit not to fire my ass.

finally a mandate that requires little effort on my part :-)
I just came back from a Pacific Island cruise and took LOTS of bad travel
shots LOL :-)

This will be an extremely difficult mandate for me. It's not that I
haven't *taken* bad shots, but that I haven't kept them. Other people
may view the ones I've kept as bad, but I see them as good and won't
know which ones to choose to post.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:
Atheist Chaplainwrote:
Bowser wrote

In my haste I neglected to include the due dates for the new mandates.
They a

Bad Travel Shots: January 30th
...

finally a mandate that requires little effort on my part :-)
I just came back from a Pacific Island cruise and took LOTS of bad travel
shots LOL :-)

This will be an extremely difficult mandate for me. It's not that I
haven't *taken* bad shots, but that I haven't kept them. Other people
may view the ones I've kept as bad, but I see them as good and won't
know which ones to choose to post.

The only interpretation I can come up with is something that is still a
good photo, or at least potential can be seen, but shows something odd
that wasn't intended... like maybe a gorgeous composition poorly exposed
or someone goofy walked into the scene... perfect shot of you posing
with the president of Botswana but with a telephone pole growing out of
your head... does that sound right?

Here's the original wording:
"Bad Travel Shots: We all have them, so let's see them! Admittedly, not
all my shots are worth of the cover of NG, or even the Tri-Town
Transcript, so dig out those less than perfect travel photos and put
them on display. NOTE: for this mandate, archive shots are acceptable.
Tell us when and where you took it, and what went wrong."

The rulz version is a little different:
"We all have them. Show us your travel shots that, well, don't meet
National Geographic standards. NOTE: archive shots are accepted for this
mandate!"

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 14:52:21 -0800, Paul Furman
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
Atheist Chaplainwrote:
Bowser wrote

In my haste I neglected to include the due dates for the new mandates.
They a

Bad Travel Shots: January 30th
...

finally a mandate that requires little effort on my part :-)
I just came back from a Pacific Island cruise and took LOTS of bad travel
shots LOL :-)

This will be an extremely difficult mandate for me. It's not that I
haven't *taken* bad shots, but that I haven't kept them. Other people
may view the ones I've kept as bad, but I see them as good and won't
know which ones to choose to post.

The only interpretation I can come up with is something that is still a
good photo, or at least potential can be seen, but shows something odd
that wasn't intended... like maybe a gorgeous composition poorly exposed
or someone goofy walked into the scene... perfect shot of you posing
with the president of Botswana but with a telephone pole growing out of
your head... does that sound right?

Here's the original wording:
"Bad Travel Shots: We all have them, so let's see them! Admittedly, not
all my shots are worth of the cover of NG, or even the Tri-Town
Transcript, so dig out those less than perfect travel photos and put
them on display. NOTE: for this mandate, archive shots are acceptable.
Tell us when and where you took it, and what went wrong."

The rulz version is a little different:
"We all have them. Show us your travel shots that, well, don't meet
National Geographic standards. NOTE: archive shots are accepted for this
mandate!"

When I get a chance, I will go through the files of travel shots taken
when I was using slide film and the scans of those slides. That's
where I'll find my bad shots because:

1. I've kept bad images because they are the only representation I
have of a particular trip or place we visited.

2. In those days, I took one or two shots of a scene and didn't know
if was a good or bad shot until I came home and had them developed.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 1/9/11 4:52 PM, in article ,
"Paul Furman" wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
Atheist Chaplainwrote:
Bowser wrote

In my haste I neglected to include the due dates for the new mandates.
They a

Bad Travel Shots: January 30th
...

finally a mandate that requires little effort on my part :-)
I just came back from a Pacific Island cruise and took LOTS of bad travel
shots LOL :-)

This will be an extremely difficult mandate for me. It's not that I
haven't *taken* bad shots, but that I haven't kept them. Other people
may view the ones I've kept as bad, but I see them as good and won't
know which ones to choose to post.

The only interpretation I can come up with is something that is still a
good photo, or at least potential can be seen, but shows something odd
that wasn't intended... like maybe a gorgeous composition poorly exposed
or someone goofy walked into the scene... perfect shot of you posing
with the president of Botswana but with a telephone pole growing out of
your head... does that sound right?


I am assuming that this would be 'right down that alley'...

http://www.ibeatyou.com/competition/c4c6de/not-so-kodak-moments