Quotes I believe in....
Mar 31, 2024 09:16:50 #
Juy wrote:
...
Can't we just except we all may have different vantage points.
Can't we just except we all may have different vantage points.
Human nature, unfortunately.....
Mar 31, 2024 10:43:48 #
exposeu wrote:
The movie "Kodachrome" on Netflix is a m... (show quote)
What's the deal with this "WE" stuff? I'm NOT a WE! Someone is painting with a very broad brush when they start applying "WE" to the entire Human Race! And "they" do it with such assurance and authority! Like it's carved in titanium, un-deniable and un-alterable! I would like to believe that it's an unconscious assumption, but I fear that it isn't!
Mar 31, 2024 10:49:13 #
User ID wrote:
Maybe we should have an intternational team effort to produce pot shards.
That's funny! But pot shards is a misnomer. I used to use that word "shards" all the time. But the "correct" term is "sherds" ?? Ask any archaeologist!
Mar 31, 2024 11:20:09 #
Retired CPO wrote:
What's the deal with this "WE" stuff? I'm NOT a WE! Someone is painting with a very broad brush when they start applying "WE" to the entire Human Race! And "they" do it with such assurance and authority! Like it's carved in titanium, un-deniable and un-alterable! I would like to believe that it's an unconscious assumption, but I fear that it isn't!
"We", as people in general, on average.
Not meant to be explicitly all-inclusive..........
Not literally!
Mar 31, 2024 11:32:36 #
Retired CPO wrote:
That's funny! But pot shards is a misnomer. I used to use that word "shards" all the time. But the "correct" term is "sherds" ?? Ask any archaeologist!
Sherd is a variant of shard,
ask any dictionary.
I, and most people I know, use shards.
Mar 31, 2024 11:49:49 #
Longshadow wrote:
Sherd is a variant of shard,
ask any dictionary.
I, and most people I know, use shards.
ask any dictionary.
I, and most people I know, use shards.
Yes. But "pot" sherds is a specific variety of broken pieces of pottery. "Shards" describes any broken chunks of "stuff". Anything from light bulbs to camera lens glass, to cameras themselves!
I, and I assume, you are not archaeologists. If not, I stand corrected. User ID spoke specifically of pottery!Mar 31, 2024 11:59:23 #
Retired CPO wrote:
Yes. But "pot" sherds is a specific variety of broken pieces of pottery. "Shards" describes any broken chunks of "stuff". Anything from light bulbs to camera lens glass, to cameras themselves! I, and I assume, you are not archaeologists. If not, I stand corrected. User ID spoke specifically of pottery!
I, and I assume, you are not archaeologists. If not, I stand corrected. User ID spoke specifically of pottery!Nope, not an archeologist.....
So, what other discipline may use shirds????? Shurds????? Shords???
Or linguistics based on geographic location?
Or, is it like "Oh, he's an archeologist, he said "sherds""......
PotAto... potahhto, tuber.... (Oh, he's a botanist....)
Mar 31, 2024 12:00:06 #
Longshadow wrote:
"We", as people in general, on average.
Not meant to be explicitly all-inclusive..........
Not literally!
Not meant to be explicitly all-inclusive..........
Not literally!
That's what "they" would like you to believe!
I feel very uncomfortable being dumped into that "WE" bucket, unceremoniously and involuntarily! Mar 31, 2024 12:08:54 #
Retired CPO wrote:
That's what "they" would like you to believe! I feel very uncomfortable being dumped into that "WE" bucket, unceremoniously and involuntarily!
I feel very uncomfortable being dumped into that "WE" bucket, unceremoniously and involuntarily! Getting a little sensitive are we?
Mar 31, 2024 12:10:17 #
Longshadow wrote:
Nope, not an archeologist.....
So, what other discipline may use shirds????? Shurds????? Shords???
Or linguistics based on geographic location?
Or, is it like "Oh, he's an archeologist, he said "sherds""......
PotAto... potahhto, tuber.... (Oh, he's a botanist....)
So, what other discipline may use shirds????? Shurds????? Shords???
Or linguistics based on geographic location?
Or, is it like "Oh, he's an archeologist, he said "sherds""......
PotAto... potahhto, tuber.... (Oh, he's a botanist....)
Partato, patauto, pertata. They aren't Archaeologist and have nothing to do with broken pottery. I'm very interested in Archaeology and have spent a lot of time as a volunteer at digs all over the Soutwest. ALL of the Archaeologists have insisted that "shards" is a misnomer when describing pottery pieces. I'll take their word for it. Now, if you want to discuss "sheds" that's something different, all together!
Mar 31, 2024 12:12:06 #
Longshadow wrote:
Getting a little sensitive are we?
What can I say? I'm a sensitive kinda guy? I even have to use that sensitive skin laundry detergent!
Mar 31, 2024 12:14:20 #
Retired CPO wrote:
Partato, patauto, pertata. They aren't Archaeologi... (show quote)
Well, before I refer to a pottery shard/sherd with someone I don't know,
I'll be sure to first ask them if they are an archeologist...
Not.
Mar 31, 2024 12:15:06 #
In the reply I posted yesterday I stated I didn't remember the movie and would watch it; I did. I had not seen this movie before and, though, I would not place it on the level of great movies, it was worth watching.
As mentioned by Juy, we all have different vantage points and it is evident here with the comments that focus on whether or not film/prints/hard drives will survive 1000 years to be examined by future generations or what the word "we" encompasses. Pot sherds or shards?
I saw a whole different storyline. The story I saw was of a dying man who, with little time left in this world, wanted to reconnect with his estranged son. The father wanted to leave the son with the most important gift; the slides of his childhood as photographed by the father that he felt didn't see him and had no time for him. It has been said that the only thing you take with you when you die are your memories. In this story, the father was able to leave some very precious memories for his son. The car trip to Kansas was the time needed for the son to lose his firm stance on his feelings for his father and to start to see him for who he was; good points, bad points and what was in between.
One important point is the Kodachrome film that needs developing before it becomes impossible. The father knows it must be developed or his legacy to his son will be lost. Another point is the father/photographer being told that he made a difference in the world of photography and would be remembered for his work.
I was touched by the "honor guard" of photographers firing their flashes as the deceased was taken away.
What I took from this film is that it wasn't about photography, it was about what a person leaves behind for his/her family; the memories. In this case it was photos; for someone else it might be stories or objects with special meaning.
That was my opinion.
Dodie
As mentioned by Juy, we all have different vantage points and it is evident here with the comments that focus on whether or not film/prints/hard drives will survive 1000 years to be examined by future generations or what the word "we" encompasses. Pot sherds or shards?
I saw a whole different storyline. The story I saw was of a dying man who, with little time left in this world, wanted to reconnect with his estranged son. The father wanted to leave the son with the most important gift; the slides of his childhood as photographed by the father that he felt didn't see him and had no time for him. It has been said that the only thing you take with you when you die are your memories. In this story, the father was able to leave some very precious memories for his son. The car trip to Kansas was the time needed for the son to lose his firm stance on his feelings for his father and to start to see him for who he was; good points, bad points and what was in between.
One important point is the Kodachrome film that needs developing before it becomes impossible. The father knows it must be developed or his legacy to his son will be lost. Another point is the father/photographer being told that he made a difference in the world of photography and would be remembered for his work.
I was touched by the "honor guard" of photographers firing their flashes as the deceased was taken away.
What I took from this film is that it wasn't about photography, it was about what a person leaves behind for his/her family; the memories. In this case it was photos; for someone else it might be stories or objects with special meaning.
That was my opinion.
Dodie
Mar 31, 2024 13:08:37 #
Juy wrote:
I like the quotes, not that they are my thoughts but a vision someone had.
Boy though reading the comments, there seems to be alot of unhappy people that need to find fault in others to justify themselves, ME included.
Can't we just except we all may have different vantage points.
Boy though reading the comments, there seems to be alot of unhappy people that need to find fault in others to justify themselves, ME included.
Can't we just except we all may have different vantage points.
Shhhh.
What would we have to entertain us otherwise?
Mar 31, 2024 13:26:11 #
In a sense, we photographers are sometimes unknowingly historians capturing the last fleeting images of subjects now or soon to be lost to obscurity.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.