The science of selfies

[MichaelChang]

<p >A fascinating look at selfies from 5 major cities across the world. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Quoted from the site:</p>

<p >Selfiecity investigates <em >selfies</em> using a mix of theoretic, artistic and quantitative methods:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>We present our findings about the demographics of people taking selfies, their poses and expressions.</li>

<li>Rich media visualizations (imageplots) assemble thousands of photos to reveal interesting patterns.</li>

<li>The interactive selfiexploratory allows you to navigate the whole set of 3200 photos.</li>

<li>Finally, theoretical essays discuss selfies in the history of photography, the functions of images in social media, and methods and dataset.</li>

</ul>

 

<p><a href="http://selfiecity.net/">http://selfiecity.net/</a> </p>

[pata]

<p>In 1986 I took an Ansel Adams workshop and David Bayles, Eugene, Oregon, was one of the instructors. David took 'selfies' with everyone there. This was 1986. Selfies aren't new. </p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Around 1953 I was playing with my grandfather's quarterplate SLR[?] and for want of a subject took a photo of myself in front of my Aunt's house in which I was living at the time.</p><div></div>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Selfies aren't new."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Everyone knows selfies aren't new, but insightful people will quickly identify the recent mass creations of selfies as an important social phenomena worthy of study, and that's what this site is about. </p>

[jcuknz]

<p>More recent when I was building the house in the b/g I took this with my home made cement mixer. C1992 Another valuable record and better focused too :-)</p><div></div>

[jcuknz]

<p>With so many people on earth these days I guess people are finding lots of worthless subjects to waste their time and usually the taxpayers' money on. The site itself is ridiculous twaddle.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I took this with my home made cement mixer</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You should have used a camera!</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<blockquote>

<p>This was 1986. Selfies aren't new.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure but the word "Selfies" itself is new. Also the camera that allows for easy selfies were not available.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Bah - Selfies are so 2013. All the cool kids are taking Dronies now. </p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>

<p>Matt Laur: "<em>Bah - Selfies are so 2013. All the cool kids are taking Dronies now</em>."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>lol! Given what appears to be the intelligence level of the average contemporary selfie taker, I doubt that piloting a drone is within their capabilities. </p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I doubt that the Selfies become Dronnies because those two types of people are signifcantly different in character.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>the intelligence level of the average contemporary selfie taker</em></p>

<p><a href="http://mediarelations.cornell.edu/2013/12/13/new-tech-lets-cholesterol-tracking-smartphone-users-take-lifesaving-selfies/">hmmmm.</a></p>

[charleswood]

<p>I suppose some do just judge by appearances. As to humor generally, one step above 'working blue' is ridiculing another's appearance, both types just refuges for the humorless.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Please pardon my ignorance in an old guy but what is a dronnie? :)</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>A <a href="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c2e_1378469387">dronie</a> is a selfie with potentially <a href="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fe7_1384461499">fatal consequences</a> for poor composition.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Lex ... I learnt that message early on when trying to fly a Quadcopter recemtly and it seemed to leap at me and I got a little cut to my finger fending it off. The blades though four in number are rather smaller than that choppers'</p>