Landrum Kelly Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 <p>I am offering here my nomination for Photo of the Last Half Hour. This does not mean that it was taken or posted during the last half hour, but simply that we can go on to another photo in another thirty minutes, which will be about 7 a.m., Sunday, May 12, 2013.</p> <p><strong>PHOTO OF THE LAST HALF HOUR:</strong></p> <p><a href="/photo/14017832&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/14017832&size=lg</a></p> <p>If members are so inclined, we can even go to Photo of the Minute. </p> <p>Please submit your photo(s) as you are so inclined.</p> <p>If we are overwhelmed by comments, then we shall have to reconsider this new institution.</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 <p>Lannie, that's way too long when cameras these days can easily shoot 8 frames a second.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 <p>Lannie, if you're unhappy with the choice of the site management to go to the Photo of the Day, instead of the week, then I guess mocking it in ALL CAPS will only make you feel better for a half hour, and otherwise do little else.<br /> Maybe a bit more reasoning backed up with data to show how the old situation was better than the new one will be more constructive.</p> <p>For what it's worth (not a lot, I know): I also strongly prefered the Photo of the Week, because often it spawned good discussions that were about photography, about how photo communicate to us and appeal to us. The new daily photo does not seem to provoke the same. But trying out something new for a while to see if it improves how a site works, or not, is not a bad thing. Evaluate afterwards on data and reasoned reactions, not gut instincts, and move on.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 <p>This is just a temporary arrangement until they get the bugs out of Photo Of Tomorrow, where we comment on the photo we think someone should make in the future.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted May 12, 2013 Author Share Posted May 12, 2013 <p>Thank you for the Daily Sermon, Wouter. Frankly, your sanctimonious commentary has begun to cloy.</p> <p>Perhaps you would like to offer the Sermon of the Last Half Hour as well?</p> <p>I do think that Matt is onto something.</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 <p>Wouter, I think there were enough compelling reasons voiced in a prior Site Help Forum thread. Dialogue is difficult on sensitive matters relating to site management and I can understand why it shouldn't be an open forum discussion, so what options are there remaining to voice ones displeasure? </p> <p>I also took Lannie's post in the spirit of humorous feedback, albeit slightly sarcastic. :-) </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted May 12, 2013 Author Share Posted May 12, 2013 <p>For what it's worth, the PHOTO OF THE LAST HALF HOUR was made by the person who also has the present Photo of the Day, Suzy McGregor.</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 <p>Matt, that's brilliant! Better than <a href=" Yesterday Shipping</a>! </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted May 12, 2013 Author Share Posted May 12, 2013 <p>Well, as for Photo of the Future, I would like to say that next year's "Fremont Undies Run" documented by Shawn Shawhan should be scheduled on a warm, sunny day.</p> <p><a href="/photo/15182075">http://www.photo.net/photo/15182075</a></p> <p>I'm trying to be constructive here.</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted May 12, 2013 Author Share Posted May 12, 2013 <p>Michael, why must time only go in one direction? I mean, think about it. There is nothing really offensive to me about saying, "I will go to the beach yesterday" or "I remember tomorrow."</p> <p>I think that God made an entirely arbitrary decision about this whole directional convention with respect to time. It has no logical foundation whatsoever.</p> <p>Upon that observed fact, I would like to postulate that sooner or later (whatever those terms might be thought to imply) Amazon<em> <strong>will</strong></em> contract with UPS for "Last Day's Shipping"--but it is going to be expensive.</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted May 12, 2013 Author Share Posted May 12, 2013 <blockquote> <p>I also took Lannie's post in the spirit of humorous feedback, albeit slightly sarcastic. :-)</p> </blockquote> <p>Thank you, Michael. I do want to point out that not all sarcasm is acidic. I tend to reserve that for Wouter when he is playing Offensive Guard, otherwise known as "Protect the Quarterback." It is in the best authoritarian tradition to defend those in power. We might even want to institute a "Sycophant of the Week" forum over in the off-topic section.</p> <p>I actually do like the photo I posted, for what that is worth.</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie H Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 <p>Lannie, if you don't specify a date/time for your "half hour" then almost all photographs are photos of the last half hour. The exception being photos with exposure times of more than half an hour, in which case those would be half photos of the last half hour.</p> <p>If you reduce your title to photos of the last 1/500th of second, we could have quite a few half and quarter photographs of the last 1/500th of a second.</p> <p>[Edit: Adding, for clarity (!?), there are an infinite number of half-hours from which half-hour preference could have be stated, etc.]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted May 12, 2013 Author Share Posted May 12, 2013 <p>Hey, Julie, I have no objections of Photo of the Last Microsecond or even Photo of the Last Nanosecond. As usual, your comments are cogent, acerbic, and pithy. Thank you for making me think. (That is sincere, not sarcasm.)</p> <p>Actually, Michael, my original posting was intended to be merely ironic, not sarcastic.</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 <blockquote> <p><em>"I do want to point out that not all sarcasm is acidic."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, Lannie, but we should also be mindful that sarcasm of a higher pH can be equally corrosive. :-) </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted May 12, 2013 Author Share Posted May 12, 2013 <p>Well, all that I can say about that, Michael, is that whether we are talking acidic or basic, sour or bitter, one does well to dissent in a way that is concise and to the point. I am quite okay with a neutral pH.</p> <p>My only regret is that I cannot give even greater emphasis on the site through New Times Roman. Sometimes caps and boldface just are not enough.</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie H Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 <p>Sarcasm tasting notes! "A mouthfull of pineapple, overdone dried berry and atomic traces of maple syrup." "Hopped-up almost boggling. Begins with bing-cherry, extra-ripe pineapple and strong-willed carrot." "Wholly obtuse but musty red. Forcefully bites you with thyme, middle-aged seedless watermelon and strong dried berry."</p> <p>[using the <a href="http://static.gmon.com/tech/output.shtml?silly=yes">Silly Tasting Notes Generator</a> -- which, come to think of it, could be tinkered with to be a handy Photo of the Half Hour commentator]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 <p>Thank you Lannie, for your special treatment you reserve for me. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. Especially since it's completely based on misreading what I wrote:</p> <p>Lannie:</p> <blockquote> <p>It is in the best authoritarian tradition to defend those in power.</p> </blockquote> <p>Wouter:</p> <blockquote> <p> For what it's worth (not a lot, I know): I also strongly prefered the Photo of the Week, because often it spawned good discussions that were about photography, about how photo communicate to us and appeal to us. The new daily photo does not seem to provoke the same.</p> </blockquote> <p>All I "protect" is that people are actually trying some changes to see if they can make this site run better. Sorry I do not greet that with sarcasm, and that I reserve my objections and reservations to the changes made until I see some results for myself that either substantiate my opinion or nullify it, before taking out my sword.<br> So, the only problem is we approach things differently, then.</p> <p><em>(And Lannie, probably you can't believe this, but the replies gave me some good laughs actually. It's the putting the title in all capitols that made me go off a bit. No need to shout, really no need)</em></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted May 12, 2013 Author Share Posted May 12, 2013 <blockquote> <p><em>It's the putting the title in all capitols that made me go off a bit. No need to shout, really no need</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Gosh, Wouter. If I had known that you were so sensitive to caps, I would have decapped everything. Try cutting back on the caffeine.</p> <p>By the way, the word you are looking for is "capitals."</p> <p>--Lannie<em><br /></em></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted May 12, 2013 Author Share Posted May 12, 2013 <blockquote> <p>atomic traces of maple syrup</p> </blockquote> <p>Julie, I love it when you talk dirty. Actually, that excerpt is positively marvelous. Thank you for that one. Where DO you get these things?!</p> <p>Ah, from photo critiques to wine-tasting reviews in the Twinkle of an Eye! Can it possibly get any better than this?!</p> <p>In the best spirit of the site, here is the damned photo again:</p> <p><a href="/photo/14017832&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/14017832&size=lg</a></p> <p>Anybody got an opinion?</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 <blockquote> <p><em>"All I "protect" is that people are actually trying some changes to see if they can make this site run better."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Wouter, I concur that management have the right (and responsibility) to make changes at their discretion, but what you've described (and my observation as well) is an experiment which is often not based on solid business principles. Trying something to see if it works, then switch to another and try that, sounds more like we don't know where we're going, in which case every path will lead us there. <br> <br> My apologies to Glen and Cara if I'm being too forward. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted May 12, 2013 Author Share Posted May 12, 2013 <p>No problem, Michael, as long as you keep your hands to yourself. . . .</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted May 12, 2013 Author Share Posted May 12, 2013 <p>Actually, Wouter, you are one of my favorite people on the site. It is just that recently you have started sounding like you are running for office.</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted May 12, 2013 Author Share Posted May 12, 2013 <p><a href="/photo/14017832&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/14017832&size=lg</a></p> <p>?</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 <p>Lannie, why did you post that photo link again? it has been more than 2 hours already.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordonjb Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 <p>Lannie, it would appear that the latest POD has gone to POT (photo of tomorrow) as at the moment there is no Photo of the Day. I sometimes check the front page to read the lonely 2 or sometimes 3 critiques which the POD garners.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now