Why Are We Wasting A Golden Opportunity?

[nels]

As the thread appears to have veered off a slight tangent into discussion of archival and such, I'll make one comment - an observation - with regards to digital.

 

I've seen people go into the nearest Walgreens to get prints made from their digital photos, without archiving the "soft copy" anywhere. They drop off the memory card, and pick it up with the prints a few hours/days later. When they see someone's arm or head chopped off in the print, they realize things aren't as they shot them. The few who notice such "accidents" in the store before leaving, and complain, are "explained" a little mis-match between aspect ratios by the printing "expert". The customers nod, sigh, throw up their arms in disbelief and resignation, and ultimately walk away with the card and prints, promptly erasing the images to capture more. The few "smart" ones ask for a CD backup from Walgreens or make one at home - just one backup - and store it in a manner similar to their music CDs.

 

At the end, all that some customers are left with is a direct print off the "default" JPG from their camera, and often cropped arbitrarily by a person who knows neither the customer nor his subjects in the picture. Of the few who walk away with a CD backup, most likely many have no idea about the concept of backup.

 

It's a sad observation for me personally, as I feel for these people and their memories. People ought to be taught the basics of digital archiving, basics of printing aspect ratios, and the bare minimum of few clicks worth of processing in schools and workplaces. The only sadder observation is that a lot of these folks aren't exactly uneducated or poor. They need to know that they are wasting an opportunity - golden or not is a matter of personal perspective.

[nels]

Heard a funny one the other day...

 

When it comes to digital archiving, there are two kinds of people in this world: those who know the process and do it with due diligence and discipline, and those who will.

[sfcole]

Who was it that said that "90% of everything is crap"? Unfortunately, Craig, it's true. Most

music written in the late 18th century was insipid and formulaic. There must have been

thousands of composers. And who's music is left? Mozart. Beethoven. Haydn. Maybe a

couple more. Most pop music is derivative and disposable. Remember the Bay City Rollers?

Good riddance. Go to any local art show and count the number of watercolors of barns.

There's a vast overproduction of art of all types. The only mind-boggling thing is why,

with so much great art, does someone like Thomas Kinkaide thrive??

 

I guess I'm mystified as to why every human creation must be saved for posterity. Most of

it stinks and just takes up room anyway. Even mine.

[don_e]

"Who was it that said that "90% of everything is crap"?"

 

Sturgeon's Law. Ted Sturgeon, sf author extraordinaire.

[don_e]

"Remember the Bay City Rollers?"

 

"I don't want more choices. I just want better things" -- Edina Monsoon.

[manjo]

"" But people seem to have no problem throwing away their negatives, ripping up prints, or deleting files of images from their computers. I would estimate that about one tenth of one percent of all picturs taken ever get shared with other people, let alone preserved in an arena where they can be viewed if someone else wanted to. ""

 

Why would anyone want to share their private life with the whole world ? I have always questioned the wisdom of people who blog and put their photos on public websites like flicker. Very few photographs lasted few generation because very few of them were made at that time. With digital cameras one can take few thousand photos more than what was done by all the photographers combined in 3 generations ago in one month. Who is interested in seeing all these photos ? especially when there are so many of them ?

[Spearhead]

<i>I have always questioned the wisdom of people who blog and put their photos on public websites like flicker. </i><p>

 

Why? If that's what other people want to do, why do you want to stop them? It's not like they're intruding on your space.<p>

Oh, and it's "flickr," not "flicker."

[eugene_scherba]

<p><i>I have always questioned the wisdom of people who blog and put

their photos on public websites like flicker.</i></p>

 

<p>It's simple: publish or perish. Either you're heard or not.</p>

[don_e]

May decades ago I was the clerk at the film counter at Walgreen's at...um..6th and Market in SF. Under the counter was the box of developed film that had not been picked up. I'd browse through it. Most were shot by the denizens of the Tenderloin and the industrial warehouse area. Street shooting by street folk.

 

One of the crimes I wish I'd committed in my life is to have taken that box with me when I quit.

[jbs]

I'm glad Flickr was brought up because sites like that are the answere to at least the OP's last question. The ethernet is the way we build this quilt of images. Can you imagine though, trying to digitize all that has come before? I can't even get all my own stuff digitized because I am too busy shooting new stuff.

[nels]

As less and less people maintain a regular written journal of their life experiences, their photographs, by default, become the only surviving "documents" of the person's life. A particular individual's pictures may not be important or compelling to the rest of us, but they often do carry a meaning for his loved ones and his direct descendants. The fact that some of them put up their pictures on sites such as Flickr for anyone to see them is no different from the fact that so many today maintain online blogs, put out music, or publish books. Not all of it matters much to everyone.

 

Who can tell if there isn't a modern day Lartigue lurking among the millions of people sharing their own existence on the web through their pictures?