too many pictures too little thought

<blockquote>

<p>More people than ever are enjoying photography. Why is this so terrible?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jeff, who said it was terrible? I didn't read anyone say it was. </p>

<p>Why is knowing and discussing all the facts about something perceived as terrible?</p>

<p>Tim - What does "Too many pictures too little thought" mean to you? To me, it means that someone doesn't like it that so many people are enjoying photography. And "Today with digital we have entered a truly mad world of happy snapping where everything is taken with little thought and little is saved". Why does anyone care what other people do with their photos? </p>

<p>Mr Arnold<br>

Thank you for you emotive post. I think we all agree that photographs have immense power and sometimes it's the hastily-taken, throway moments that have the most power. I was in a girlfriend's place a long time ago and she gave me a pile of photographs to look through while she made a coffee or something. As I was looking through them I was forcibly struck by the fact of her personhood, that she was an intact and loved human being that I was merely privileged to spend some time with. Looking through image after image of her interactions with others, her different outfits, expressions and places she'd been really made me think about the reality and vastness of this world and the huge multitude in it. When she came back into the room, she stopped to smile at me and it was another photograph (in my mind), lost forever, another sacred moment, gone forever. </p>

 

<p><strong>"It all started with the mass marketing of 35mm cameras in the 60s..."</strong><br>

<br>

Actually, that's incorrect. Instead, it was in 1895 when George Eastman released the first $5 pocket camera for the masses that produced 1½ x 2 negatives and hence made photography available to the common person. This same gripe you have today with digital, others (with 8x10 cameras) also held the same view at the turn of the previous century :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Today with digital we have entered a truly mad world of happy snapping where everything is taken with little thought and little is saved"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's what you were referencing as being terrible, Jeff? Is it so terrible to be mad about photography? Dang it! That didn't sound right.</p>

<p>Oh...Why lie! I just wanted to rattle off a Jeff "in-Spired-ed" styled quip just to see what it feels like.</p>

<p>I'm vibrating at the moment from the experience. You'll have to give me some time while I take it in...aaaah!</p>

<p>[[a clarification --- when I say 'too little thought' I don't mean every shot has to be a masterpiece but at least should be of something worthwhile and with some composition not aimlessly shot simply because you have the ease of operation and storage available.]]</p>

<p>The daguerreotypists weep for us all. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Not a new problem:</p>

 

<h1 >“A photographer is like a cod, which produces a million eggs in order that one may reach maturity.”</h1>

― <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/5217.George_Bernard_Shaw">George Bernard Shaw</a>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Quite frankly its much easier these days to preserve a digital file than it is to preserve a print or an album</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is whilst the owner is alive and active but once he is gone it is reversed. An inactive print or negative stands more chance of survival than a file not in an active backup regime.</p>

<p> </p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Steve - I think your post on the find of the Tower Bridge photos proves the opposite point you intended.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In this case, it probably does but for each story like this, how many were disposed of and not saved?</p>

<p>I just thought it was an interesting and related story to post.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>As far as pictures with too little thought, that's the way a lot of pictures are supposed to be. Snapshots.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A lot of old photographs have no technical merit and terrible composition but have become interesting because of their age and the fact that they show something or a way of life which has now changed.</p>

<p>These are the sort of pictures which are now deleted as they're not of much interest whereas in the past they were printed anyway as a whole set from a film and only became interesting with the passing of time.</p>

<p>The OP provides a criticism, but not a new one. One must live with many events, actions and choices. All you need to do is to selectively take what you want from that. The OP <br /> Too many pictures, too little thought<br /> has a few other cousins of similar type:</p>

<p>Too many words, too little thought<br /> Too many wars, too little peace<br /> Too much dogma, too little compassion for others<br /> Too many diversions, too little targeted purpose</p>

<p>Ah, I am being called for the second time to finish my yard clean-up and mow the grass. With no moneyable computer work to justify, the present diversion is hardly tenable.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sorry, Tim, don't take this wrong, but I just can't resist pointing out a bit of irony that gave me a chuckle: Today, in this thread at noon, Tim L said: <em>"...Please don't anyone of you recommend some damn DAM book to read on how to do it. NOT INTERESTED!"</em></p>

<p>However, at 12:28 in the barcode thread ( http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00aeCD ), Tim said: <em>"...I recommend a DAM (Digital Asset Management) book..."</em>.</p>

<p>:-)</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It is whilst the owner is alive and active but once he is gone it is reversed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I don't think I will care much about my photos once I am dead. I don't think I will care much about anything at that point.</p>

<p><strong>"What does "Too many pictures too little thought" mean to you? To me, it means that someone doesn't like it that so many people are enjoying photography. And "Today with digital we have entered a truly mad world of happy snapping where everything is taken with little thought and little is saved". Why does anyone care what other people do with their photos?"</strong><br>

<br>

Great questions, Jeff<br>

<br>

Timely thread, for me as I'm in the middle of a massive scanning project. I'm scanning old b&w prints from my grandparents and parents house. A suit case full of them and it's time and resource consuming, to say the least.</p>

<p>@ Steve Smith: Thanks a ton for your link! I really appreciate it.</p>

<p>What is amazing, in the context of the mutiplicity of snaps today, is that Steve's link refers to apparently unique photos of this impressive engineering accomplishment. I have seen technical drawings of parts of it before (the idea underwent a number of variations before final acceptance) but never such revealing images. Such events wouldn't go unnoticed for a long time today.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry, Tim, don't take this wrong, but I just can't resist pointing out a bit of irony that gave me a chuckle: Today, in this thread at noon, Tim L said: <em>"...Please don't anyone of you recommend some damn DAM book to read on how to do it. NOT INTERESTED!"</em><br>

However, at 12:28 in the barcode thread ( <a href="00aeCD" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00aeCD</a> ), Tim said:<em>"...I recommend a DAM (Digital Asset Management) book..."</em>.<br>

:-)<br>

Tom M</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tom, thanks for keeping up with me. ;¬}</p>

<p>I actually did intend for my response to John E in the "Barcode" thread to be funny (to me) as well as cathartic.</p>

<p>Thanks for letting me know you caught that. Now I'm laughing, again!</p>

<p>Steve - those are valid points about someone having to care for the photographs in the long run, after we're gone. I'm pretty much of the opinion that that's not my problem - and I'll let the next generations deal with what they want to keep</p>

<p>I did understand your point about the London Bridges shots as well - if someone hadn't kept those prints in some way they would have been "history", as opposed to now showing history. And it was a cool link, thankyou.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Along this subject I found a digital P&S camera snorkeling at the bottom of my local river and took it home to view the images to see if I could figure out who the owner was. I even hunted up the serial number calling the manufacturer and got no where. The camera couldn't take pictures but could display the previews of what was on the SD card on its LCD screen.</p>

<p>Good Lord! I was never more bored looking at what accounted to be a little over 100 crooked, poorly composed, hip shots taken by some nubile 20 something college girl of herself and other of her generically pretty cloned friends vacationing on Colorado ski slopes with the last half the pics showing her and her buddies tubing on my town's local river where I found the camera.</p>

<p>The pictures and the camera didn't seem important enough to this person to get someone or herself to just dive down into the clear spring river and retrieve it. I mean you have a tube as a flotation device. How hard can it be?! The river isn't that deep. It averages about 5-6ft in most spots.</p>

<p>I ended up throwing the camera and all its contents away. I didn't feel one way or the other about it even though I first wanted so badly to get this camera to the owner because this seemed like a once in a lifetime moment she captured of her and her friends together until after some thought and moments of frustration it dawned on me that if she could afford to take these kind of vacations at that age I'm sure she'll be able to afford another.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I ended up throwing the camera and all its contents away. I didn't feel one way or the other about it even though I first wanted so badly to get this camera to the owner because this seemed like a once in a lifetime moment she captured of her and her friends together</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And she died horribly in an auto accident the following week. Those pictures were the only images her grieving parents ever would have had of her last happy moments...(snif) Ah well...</p>

<p>[[The pictures and the camera didn't seem important enough to this person to get someone or herself to just dive down into the clear spring river and retrieve it. I mean you have a tube as a flotation device. How hard can it be?! The river isn't that deep. It averages about 5-6ft in most spots.]]</p>

<p>Why would you not consider the possibility that she didn't know where she lost it, Tim? That she thought it was secured but, in fact, it slipped off the raft/tube/other. </p>

<p>[[Good Lord! I was never more bored looking at what accounted to be a little over 100 crooked, poorly composed, hip shots taken by some nubile 20 something college girl of herself and other of her generically pretty cloned friends vacationing on Colorado ski slopes with the last half the pics showing her and her buddies tubing on my town's local river where I found the camera.]]</p>

<p>The photos are not yours and they are not for you. They are hers and they are for her and her friends. Why should you care what they look like or how they are composed?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I came from a middle class English family before WW2 and we had one box brownie. I should think we took one roll a year maybe two max and pretty well all pictures were special occasions and carefully composed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>　<br />How much did film cost back then? There are inflation factor calculators on the web - could you figure out how costs per print compare to today? I'll bet it was relatively expensive.<br />　<br />Also, how did the Brownie's capabilities compare to a modern P&S digicam? What sensitivity film did your family use? Did it have a rangefinder or did you guesstimate or measure focus? Was it possible to (and did you) use flash? How did these factors affect the kind of pictures you were able to take?<br />　<br />　<br />Finally, everything I've read about that period suggests it was very different socially. All people, but particularly the middle class who sought to "better" themselves and rise in society, were more concerned about appearances, decorum and propriety than in today's freewheeling culture. People dressed for dinner, and probably many other occasions. They were less likely to be informal, particularly in front of strangers. They were encouraged to value education and culture, and therefore more likely to have some artistic talent and sense. All of these things led to more careful, thoughtful composition.<br />　<br />　<br />　<br />Today is a different world, where even senior citizens act like spoiled children at times. Society values "authenticity" and spontenaity above all, and we don't hesitate to wear our hearts on our sleeves in front of strangers. Hard to think of "dress and decorum" when people go grocery shopping in pajamas. Is it any wonder that today's style of photography is different?</p>

All great points, thought I'd offer my short 2 cents.

If I am out and about, and someone wants to see pics of my

family...I don't get out my wallet with printed photos, I show

them my family pics on my iPhone.

If someone strikes up a conversation about my

photography , I show them my website or Flickr. Better, I

text or email them a link they can look at on a larger screen

at home. I don't lug a portfolio book with me.

Even the few photos I have sold to various entitites. all

have been sold by taking my laptop with photos to the

customer.

I am 44, been on both print and digital ends, digital is more

convenient, cheaper, and honestly often better quality.

I've got thousands of digital pics, great good and poor.

<blockquote>

<p>Why should you care what they look like or how they are composed?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So, Rob, do have an answer for that?</p>

<p>I think I already made it clear that I DIDN'T CARE for her photos and neither did she. You weren't there. You don't take a camera on a river in a inner tube and not notice it's NOT THERE. There's no room to put it anywhere but on the person carrying it. They don't bring purses on the river if you haven't already thoroughly thought it through like I just did which I'ld advise you take a moment and think about the logistics of carrying a very expensive device that has cherished memories on it floating slowly down a river.</p>

<p>They used to post that bunny with the pancake on its head here once in awhile for threads like this. That still happen? </p>

I would post the pancake bunny, but, alas, I think the digital file got deleted. ;-)