bmattock
Veteran
Yes, I can see that I worded it inartfully. Breaking it down, I said:
"Not to put too fine a point on it, but the thought occurs to me that people who cannot afford a camera probably could use something else more than a family photo."
Meaning, they are more in need of other things than photos. Pretty clear so far.
"Maybe a sammich."
A slang term for 'sandwich'. Meaning they could use a sandwich more than they could use a photo of themselves. Again, reasonably clear.
"Little time spent working in a soup kitchen, perhaps."
This was my mistake. I should have said that perhaps the erstwhile photographer would do more good putting a little time in at a soup kitchen than roaming around taking photos of poor people to give them some memento to treasure.
Are you willing accept my correction, or are you a pusillanimous pouncetrifle?
Everyone here knows me. I'm a person of strong opinions and a very high intellect. I'll argue a point to death, but I'll admit when I'm wrong. If I make a mistake, I'll apologize. My mistake was in not wording my statement clearly enough - and for that, I do apologize. I corrected it. You can accept that, or go pound sand. I don't care which.
How's that work for ya?
bmattock
Veteran
Every word.
Oh, cry me a river. I have no photos of my childhood either. Life sucks; get a helmet.
I thought I made it clear. I think people too poor to afford a camera can probably appreciate something a little more substantive more.
Give it your best shot!
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
You are wriggling because you got caught out.
And even now you are thoroughly obnoxious.
Spider67
Well-known
"Oh, cry me a river. I have no photos of my childhood either. Life sucks; get a helmet."
Well he did not cry a river or get a helmet he became a photographer. Is there a better way to get over it?
"A slang term for 'sandwich'. Meaning they could use a sandwich more than they could use a photo of themselves. Again, reasonably clear."
...Seems to be a popular concept that poor people don't know what they want. That being poor could mean you only have the right to choose the products for basic needs. And to ignore it when they want a memento. (Giving them a photo instead of food is not the topic.)
.....It just came to my mind how many of us asked the poor before stating what they need or don't need.
Still that's a very important reminder. And I think that's waht makes some of us give away gear for free.
Well he did not cry a river or get a helmet he became a photographer. Is there a better way to get over it?
"A slang term for 'sandwich'. Meaning they could use a sandwich more than they could use a photo of themselves. Again, reasonably clear."
...Seems to be a popular concept that poor people don't know what they want. That being poor could mean you only have the right to choose the products for basic needs. And to ignore it when they want a memento. (Giving them a photo instead of food is not the topic.)
.....It just came to my mind how many of us asked the poor before stating what they need or don't need.
Still that's a very important reminder. And I think that's waht makes some of us give away gear for free.
bob338
Well-known
i doubt many here actually know you, we know the gibberish you blather.
i will go out on a limb and argue that you're actually not intelligent at all, i think you're an idiot. you seem to think that if you can just cram one more paragraph into your posts, you'll come across as some kind of authority on everything. but you don't, you come across as just another anonymous loser with a thesaurus.
be quiet and let the thread continue.
bob
Tuolumne
Veteran
And so George Martin did, becoming one of the longest playing members of the NFL ever.
/T
climbing_vine
Well-known
I'm a little confused what this hubbub is about, I understood Bill's initial point just fine. Might or might not entirely agree with it, but he's not weaseling... his breakdown is exactly what I read from it.
Shrug.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I think perhaps some left over animosity from earlier encounters...just guessing.
I understood Bill as well, for the most part, I agree with him. Food and shelter before pics.
On the other hand, we all help in the ways we are most able and comfortable.
peripatetic
Well-known
I understood B's point, though the first post was open to being read both ways.
I disagree though. Photos are precious to all people, particularly those who cannot afford the cameras to take them.
Fortunately I have never been in a position where I really had to choose, but I would skip a few meals for pictures of my girls. After a few years the only thing that brings back the memories with any real clarity for me is photos.
I disagree though. Photos are precious to all people, particularly those who cannot afford the cameras to take them.
Fortunately I have never been in a position where I really had to choose, but I would skip a few meals for pictures of my girls. After a few years the only thing that brings back the memories with any real clarity for me is photos.
climbing_vine
Well-known
I think that makes some sense. I wouldn't want to see the kids going hungry so that parents can play with a camera; but I know that there are plenty of parents who would (and do, and have--like my grandparents) skip a meal or three to have those mementos.
pachuco
El ****
Honestly, bmattock says what is on his mind, get over it. I don't know the guy from a sack of flour but his remarks are what they are, if you don't like them then ignore them. Move on. This was a great thread until people started arguing and projecting guilt or shame on others.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Why are you guys getting your knickers over in a bunch? I know Bill well enough. I won't agree or disagree with his statement; it may not have been the most correct either, but I cannot, for the life of me, find any irksomeness or obnoxiousness with it. He simply pointed out something others had ignored.
Actually, Jon was infinitely ruder... but then, must be leftover passion from a previous conversation.
Calm down. All. Shake hands. Learn to live and understand. Sheesh...
Actually, Jon was infinitely ruder... but then, must be leftover passion from a previous conversation.
Calm down. All. Shake hands. Learn to live and understand. Sheesh...
emraphoto
Veteran
wow bill! you sure know how to keep it lively around here... i suspect that isn't by chance.
i have spent the last 8 months documenting the harm reduction model in a city of approximately 500,000. in that time i have spent what could be considered a "large amount" of time with people a fathom or two below the poverty line. in this community food is plentiful. soup kitchens are numerous and run 7 days a week. that being said the most common request i get is a family "snap". people seem to really appreciate having them.
i applaud the fella for his commitment. we all have our own motivations for the way we do things... i assume his are deep and heartfelt.
i have spent the last 8 months documenting the harm reduction model in a city of approximately 500,000. in that time i have spent what could be considered a "large amount" of time with people a fathom or two below the poverty line. in this community food is plentiful. soup kitchens are numerous and run 7 days a week. that being said the most common request i get is a family "snap". people seem to really appreciate having them.
i applaud the fella for his commitment. we all have our own motivations for the way we do things... i assume his are deep and heartfelt.
Ducky
Well-known
I think the OP and the referenced link were intended to present an intelectual/philosophical discussion about the value of family photos. I have read many times on these forums about saving negatives and archival sleeves etc., always defending the value of family memories. I'm sure the football player has memories but no images to back them up.
IMHO the term "unimaginable luxury" skews the discussion since a camera in a non-essential to most of the world, rich or poor. So, they didn't have a camera. Big deal.
IMHO the term "unimaginable luxury" skews the discussion since a camera in a non-essential to most of the world, rich or poor. So, they didn't have a camera. Big deal.
Last edited:
Tuolumne
Veteran
When someone who grew up in poverty makes a remark about the value of a photograph to him, it has a different weight than when it comes as a pious platitude from the affluent. He felt it was not a "non-essential", and its absence drove him to become an avid amateur photographer throughout his life. If we reduce life's needs to the bare minimum to get by, then life would hardly be worth living. On a forum where we all obsess about the best way to spend $1200 on equipment, or whether we should feel guilty about grabbing a street photo, it's worth remembering what the value of a simple snapshot is to someone. And yes, perhaps offering one to them would make a difference, as much as a crust of bread.
/T
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I agree 110%. Here in ultraconservative Indiana, people who have a little money all have the attitude that the poor barely deserve to live, let alone have any enjoyment in life. Yes, many, many people have said exactly that to me over the years here. Most of the people who act like that aren't even rich, mostly people a couple generations from the trailer park themselves (my family being a perfect example of such, and they have a nasty attitude toward anyone who is low-income). I think it comes from an intense fear that they're going to be pushed into poverty themselves. Somehow, degrading those less fortunate will keep those with just a little from slipping downward. Sad.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Or, one could always donate one of the shelf queens that's not a collectible.