10% of all the photos we have were taken in the past 12 months

<p>Something to think about!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Every 2 minutes today we snap as many photos as the whole of humanity took in the 1800s. In fact, ten percent of all the photos we have were taken in the past 12 months.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>http://1000memories.com/blog/94-number-of-photos-ever-taken-digital-and-analog-in-shoebox</p>

Seems obvious rather than surprising, because of (1) cameras in phones, (2) ubiquity of phones, and (3) direct posting

from phones to Facebook and other sites.

<p>I'm sure there were similar stories when the horseless carriage came along; disruptive technologies have a way of doing that. </p>

<p>And fully one-third of all pictures taken go on FB.</p>

<p>I imagine Google Streetview accounts for a sizable number of images from a single source.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And fully one-third of all pictures taken go on FB.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I highly doubt that.</p>

<p>What's Facebook?</p>

<p>When rioting broke out in London around August, I had just joined twitter. I spend more time in front of the computer over a three or four day period than watching tv news. There were so many pictures and videos that were linked to twitter. Of course, a major event would have this sort of effect. But I can certainly believe that a third of all pictures end up in facebook albums.</p>

<p>I question as to whether even a third of all pictures go on the internet in some way.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Every 2 minutes today we snap as many photos as the whole of humanity took in the 1800s. In fact, ten percent of all the photos we have were taken in the past 12 months.</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>And only 3 or 4 will be remembered for more than a day. So what's the value of these 'knips-images'? Almost zero.</p>

<p>But many photographs of the past - made in the 18th and 19th century and <em>before</em> we have heard about the Internet - are still in our memories. Value: sometimes more than 100.000 US$ per photograph.</p>

<p>We really should differentiate between photographs/photography and pixelimages/electronic capturing.</p>

<p>You know what's even scarier? 20 hours of video is uploaded every minute on YouTube, and that's just today's figures.<br>

[<a href="http://royal.pingdom.com/2010/02/24/google-facts-and-figures-massive-infographic/">Link</a>] </p>

<p>Probably two big factors are social networking sites and the fact that once you buy the camera, the photos you don't print are free. We went to a niece's wedding earlier this month. I brought a P&S and made 33 prints. Another niece sent us 178 pictures on Snapfish, and some of them were pretty good. Those 178 pictures would have required 8 rolls of 24 exposure film. The film and processing would have cost her at least $100. At those prices, she wouldn't have sent us any prints.</p>

<p>178 pictures would have required 5 rolls @ 36 exposures. Kodak Elitechrome 100 (slide film, the most expensive choice) costs around 4 Euro * 5 = 20 Euro plus 2 Euro per roll for development = 10 Euro. Total = 30 Euro. A 10 x 15 cm (4x6 inch) print costs 12 cent. 'Some of them' ~ 20 pictures = 2,40 Euro. Plus 3 Euro for the mail including a nice, personal handwritten letter. Grand total 35,40 Euro. With a digital camera the whole adventure would have cost 5,40 Euro. </p>

<p>For this tiny investment you would have had the joy of some great pictures without having to boot your computer, without having to view ads around snapfish.</p>

<p>If I value and respect another person, I wouldn't be stingy. But being stingy is a huge trend in society, because currently these online services are 'free'. However, most of these services are forced to make money - the investors expect a nice return on investment. That means that these services will start charging in the very next future (the next logical step for an enterprise), or your online storage will be gone. Even worse is the behavior to transfer the costs for printing the images to someone else and to force him/her to view all the trash pictures.</p>

<p>What people don't understand: There is no such thing as a free lunch.</p>

<p>Jens, I always send prints to the bride and groom and other family members. Even though the per print cost is minimal, I would never send pictures on Snapfish (or similar site) and expect friends and relatives to have to pay for them. Sending me 178 mostly not so good prints doesn't bother me because my niece is not an experienced photographer. I actually think that it's very nice of her to send me any pictures. As far as having to pay for any I print off Snapfish, that's what young people do now.</p>

<p>I don't expect my niece's pictures to be as good as mine. I've been a serious photographer for a long time. She's a casual photographer. I don't expect her photos to be more than snapshots, and I do appreciate her thinking of us and sending us her pictures.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"If I value and respect another person, I wouldn't be stingy. But being stingy is a huge trend in society"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I find that to be a rather odd remark, Jens. Is it appropriate that the value and respect for another person be measured monetarily? </p>

<p>Michael, if I value and respect someone, I would do everything to make his life a nice and comfortable as possible. Do you think this is odd? Is it odd because I have been raised and educated this way?</p>

<p>Imagine: I even make large format prints which I mail to customers or hand them over during a personal visit because I know they will enjoy a print. The alternative would be to just send the file or a CD or DVD along with an invoice.</p>

<p>I grew up in a family where it is natural to care for each other, to please other family members, where it is natural to 'invest some funds' for a gift to 'send a smile'.</p>

<p>But I guess times have changed. The society turned into a cold and frosty interpersonal atmosphere, where only the profits and savings are important (free storage, free give aways, free this, free that). It turned into a very egocentric mentality: everything for me, nothing for others.</p>

<p>OK, I am odd, I am 'old' (56). But I know what it means to have good manners and how to value and respect other people.</p>

<p>You know what: I even hate it if i.e. advanced hobbyists or professionals don't get a virtual server to show their work. I don't even spend a second on going to view their images. A virtual server is only around 5 Euro or 5 Dollars per month and runs ad free. But no, they want it for FREE, forcing me to be harassed and bombarded with ads from the supplier of the 'free' service.</p>

<p>I don't know what the i-generation dreams during the night or what they smoke, but in my eyes they are way off.</p>

<p>Poor little cheapos, not suited to communicate with my world.</p>

<p>I don't think human nature changes so much. There have always been selfish self centered people. I don't think today's young people are any different from past generations in that regard. I was a middle school teacher for 30 years in the same school. I was teaching kids whose parents I had taught, and I didn't see any difference from one generation to the other. To be honest, I think that I changed more than the kids did. I knew it was time to retire when a former student, now an adult, said to me that I was so patient with her and her class. I realized that I wasn't as patient as I used to be, not because the kids were changing but because I was.</p>

<p>A favorite saying of mine is that things are not the way they used to be, and they never were.</p>