Tourism Selfies

[sarah_fox]

<p>Sorry about that, Anders! I was joking with you. I wish there were some sort of "tongue-in-cheek" emoticon -- maybe (^_^D You see, I always get scolded if I criticize some trend, hence my scolding you for having expressed what I refrained from expressing. Ah well... The internet... Harumph!</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.747868035275187.1073741852.171846589544004&type=3">I like shooting tourist selfies</a>.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Nice, Ian.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

"<I>When taking a selfie, why is it important to stand in front of something scenic? Or perhaps the question should be: When photographing something scenic, why is it desirable to place one's self in the frame? Is this simply a statement that someone was there?</I>"<P>

 

Yes.

[jim_momary]

<p>If God had not wanted us to take selfies, why would he have given us the self-timer?</p>

<p>:o)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Most selfies don't utilize a self timer. Old school.</p>

[ljwest]

<p>People have been taking this type of shot - themselves in front of a scenic view, notable building, object, etc - since long before the term "selfie" was coined, and long before cellphone or any digital camera was made. I've done it (once or twice...), my family, and I'm sure just about any person or family that has/had a camera has done it. I wouldn't doubt that the first Brownie that came in for processing had one of this type of shot on it.</p>

<p>As for why, I think it's simply a notation that you were there, or with that person. The old internet meme "pix or it didn't happen" comes to mind, even though that phrase was also late to the party.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Larry, I'd dispute that. At least my experience with these family snapshots in the past is that most of the time, especially with brownies, it was a picture in front of some scenery or natural wonder of a family taken by someone not in the picture. The selfie aspect was not usually present in these ubiquitous family tourist snapshots of the past.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Here is a friend taking a picture of a drawing of his grandson at Karnak. He took these on the whole trip to show his grandkid that he was thinking of him.<br>

Is, is it a "yousie"?</p><div></div>

[spanky]

<p>There doesn't seem to be a day that I go out to shoot that people don't ask me to take a picture of them. Sometimes, it's a single person, maybe a few couples, and groups. Someone will give me their camera and I always happily take a few pics for them. I guess people automatically figure I must know what I'm doing if I have a film camera around my neck, I don't know. <br /> Anyway, I'm sort of guilty of falling into the selfie craze. However, almost all of mine are confined to my darkroom. When I go in to print, I don't like to be disturbed. So as a sort of joke I'd take a heavily pixelated blurry selfie under the safe-light and I would upload it to my Facebook page with the text "Don't bother me. I'm in the darkroom." I soon became fascinated at how these pictures would turn out. When viewed on my desktop screen, the huge pixels glowed with such luminescence that the picture took on a very painterly quality, like an Impressionist portrait. So now I do this every time I go into print. Some of my friends have admitted they find these selfies "horrible" and "disturbing" and "no likey" but they know me well enough to know that I just love such Surreal occurrences.</p><div></div>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>virtual narcism in all its forms (selfies, facebook, twitter...) stroking the ego<br>

pathological dimension of our times<br>

lazy/disinterested<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm fairly certain that insulting and denigrating at least 75% of the people taking pictures, and probably 95% of the ones under 30, will a) not help anyone with their photography (ostensibly the purpose of photo.net), and b) not attract new members (something that is desperately needed.) Surely there is a way to talk about photography that doesn't require condescension and rudeness.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Jeff, I was expecting that from you, so no surprise. Just go ahead, Jeff, and add the category of "selfies" among the many other categories on Photonet like "people", "travel", "flowers" etc, and I'm sure that you have done a good days work of promoting Photonet, as you would like to see it. Others might disagree, if you permit.<br>

Nothing rude about denouncing virtual narcissism. Promoting and supporting it might on the contrary be considered an extreme form of incivility. </p>

 

[GerrySiegel]

I see it Sarah as more of just another drop in expectations of the quality of shooting, the snapshot of our day, with quantity taking primacy over anything else. Cool which is not so very cool after all in the long view. I guess I am thinking of the background as being another opportunity to add another shot of one's mug for posting on social media. I have never seen anyone carrying one of those boom poles that hold the camera phone or wide angle camera out far enough to get anything resembling composition. I guess what I am saying is that any photo of oneself at the monument becomes something to add one more check-off to the daily posting on Facebook. Got to add something, anything.... If I want to stroke my ego, and I may do it from time to time in front of the mirror to see how my beard looks today, I don't think anyone is interested in my mug as it evolves in my tribal elder years so to speak. When I visited the Acropolis there was a photo stand with the perfect advantage to get subjects ( and I succumbed) composed in the photo and paid the drachmas not euros. I look back with some fondness, not at my mug, but the memories of the whole tour of duty in the Med courtesy of the Navy. The shot was a good shot, a Kodak vista shot.... It must have been one of those rare in camera processes resolved to print fullly on heavy card stock in five minutes--- cameras I have read about that are rarities nowadays since digital.

Look at the photo bios on PN home workspace pages...not much background, not much selfiness either. But I got to say, I would rather look at a large WA nose ,underexposed, mug shot selfie than a FB photo of the latest chili relleno at the Taco Hut. Or the ones that read " my shepherd pie dinner plate."

I think selfies are separating the sheep from the lambs or the castrated pigs when we use the self timer or get someone to take the shot for us after set up.

 

Otherwise I would argue Sarah that the selfie with background from owner's hand iis a fad that is boring and I predict will have its day and pass, (cross fingers) We should be so lucky.

Here then is to landscapers who work at the landscape and wait for the perfect light.

Now we are getting to where the photo snapshot rabble get sorted from the serious. Elitism you bet. In earlier days I stood on ledges to get the shot, maybe risked more than the camera.....

PS. On the other hand,- new topic: sexting photos are another upstart from technology and youth's whackiness likke flagpole sitting maybe-.- which makes too much of the mundane "landscape" of the body, without pretense of artistry. Just a dare like doing a back flip well.

Another juicy and timely topic I guess for another post..The Naked Selfie ( a cute book title?)..

Aloha friends. and remember the mirror view is all backwards. Some faces do need a MUA, maybe most of them.

[GerrySiegel]

Per Sarah: < Rather, I am trying to understand it, because I'm wondering how it can be done better.>

 

Get the camera in the hands of someone who knows how to use it. In the case of my son, I taught him to use a Canon film camera and he has an innate sense of composition. Well, within limits. So no, self timer is old hat, but having your shot done by a companion is not so difficult. Let your traveling companion who hates taking pictures try to hold it steady and set the flash as you like. How can you lose with the innocent- er Intelligent- mode on the latest ones, and don't overlook flash which is now automagical. And, wonder of wonders the viewfinder shy can look at the big LCD and even touch the target spot. I digress. I have a shot that at first looks like a grip and grin, which it is. But hey, that guy on the left was U.S. Senator Spark Matsunaga for whom our VA hospital got named. More important he made a name for himself with visitors from his home state. All, and I mean all got a full hour long Senatorial tour of the Capital and a chance to eat at reseved table with him in the famed Senate Dining Rome( I had legendary Senate Bean Soup. Not bad but not great) courtesy of Spark. " " Over there is Jesse Helms, " said our senator. Big guy, not a progressive:-) type... No constituents at any other tables. None, maybe never,,, Spark got a rerutation of bringing a covey of Hawaiian print shirted visitors each day.

And he walked us around as tour guide, showed us the statue of King Kamehameha, a duplicate of the gold one here in Honolulu.

So the grip and grin mundane shot to me and my family in the U.S. Capital represents the whole the subject (me) as shown. Stiff collared in an ill fitting dragged from another era tie:-) and mothball smelling jacket. Just a thought. Though I visited DC a lot, airport to conference room and back to airport, this day was SPECIAL for me and David. I still have autographed copy of the Senate Menu. They eat for cheap btw..

To be cooler-whatever it means. I am respectfully... 'just saying.' gs<div></div>

[KenPapai]

<p>I do selfies every now and then to see the varieties of ways I appear in reflections and stuff, usually...</p><div></div>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I always take a few selfies a year - documents me getting older etc etc. My wife never takes a simple view of something without a member of the family in it too. I don't understand it, but as others have said this is because she has no pretensions to be a Photographer with a capital "P". I think we really should flip the question and ask why we are not like the majority and do not include someone we know in every photo? It really makes us the weird ones, if anything.</p>

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>Here is a selfie (+1) taken while on a bike ride. It's hard to keep the horizontals horizontal when you are trying not to crash or drop the camera. I look at taking sefies as a fun thing to do and, in this case, a documentation of an enjoyable activity. I do not ascribe any deeper psycological or philosophical meaning to the process. If I think about it too much, I might not do it, at least not with a smile on my face.</p><div></div>

[AJHingel]

<p>""why we are not like the majority and do not include someone we know in every photo?""<br>

<br>

Robin, you are probably right on that. Given the fact that photos now-a-days are shot by all and at any time most of them are snapshots to share with friends and in most of these, friends are included.<br>

"Selfies" is a category all by itself where the shooter is the main subject. You can of course shoot self-portraits, as photographers have done throughout the history of photography, which would not be "selfies". <br>

Let's look it up in the dictionary:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>selfie</strong><br>

(also <strong>selfy</strong>)<br>

Definition of <em>selfie</em> in English:<br>

<strong>NOUN</strong> (<strong>plural </strong><strong>selfies</strong>)<br>

<em>informal</em><br>

A photograph that one has taken of oneself, typically one taken with a smartphone or webcamand shared via social media:<br>

<em>occasional</em><em> selfies are </em><em>acceptable</em><em>, but posting a new </em><em>picture</em><em> of yourself every day isn’t </em><em>necessary</em><br>

(Oxford Dictionary)</p>

</blockquote>

[Spearhead]

<p>There is nothing in that definition that rules out what people have called "self-portaits" since the beginning of photography.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>While there is, of course, some overlap between selfie and self-portrait, they say different things to me (even though they say <em>some</em> of the same things in part). The prevalence of the instantaneousness of sharing with a wide audience is different and the smartphone aspect is different. A lot of things that seem similar not identical to how it used to be, so a slightly different name can help capture those differences. I accept and have really loved both some self portraits and some selfies.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I agree, Jeff, the "self" is constant.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Glenn, either you didn't get the horizon straight... OR... or you and your wife have superhuman stamina, riding up an incredibly steep hill with such ease! :-)</p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>JDM Von Weinberg: <em>Fort Fisher (now can I say I've been to all the important Civil War sites?)</em></blockquote>

<p>I will immediately race to your portfolio looking for an image of <strong>one</strong> of these:<br /> a.) JDM at The Angle<br /> b.) JDM next to a 20th Maine flank marker (Left or Right will suffice)<br /> c.) JDM in front of the Virginia Monument<br /> d.) JDM next to Spangler's Spring or on top of the Culp's Hill tower.<br /> e.) or, for a change of venue, JDM standing in the Sunken Road or next to Dunker's Church.</p>

<p>;-)</p>

<p>[EDIT: Dunker Church, the Sunken Road, and LRT are well represented. My apologies, sir. (To say nothing of Chicakamauga, as site I long to visit as it is so damned complicated to try and envision the battlefield from books and maps alone.)]</p>

<p>As to Sara's original question -- Maybe it's as simple as people taking those photos (selfies or of others) just to show, and remember, that they were there? I remember my parents going through some old photos of theirs years ago and many were of scenery, sometimes of scenery at a location long forgotten. Their remark was that they should have at least photographed one of themselves in front of that scenery.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>All intentional photography is narcissistic and inherently self centered. Selfies are the most honest expression of that narcissism inherent to all deliberate photography. The rest of us are just pretenders, couching our photographic subjects as outward looking, of some universal aesthetic truth or appeal. Unless we're commercial photographers doing the client's bidding, we photograph landscapes, bugs, blossoms, beasts, babes, people or whatever appeals to us because it appeals to us. Us, as in me, the self. All deliberate photography done in pursuit of satisfying the personal aesthetic is inherently a self portrait, inherently self involved, inherently narcissistic.</p>

<p>The only significant difference is that selfies don't have any pretense. They don't pretend it's about some universal aesthetic, or documenting a thing, a subject, a person or a situation because it "needs" to be documented. Nothing "needs" to be documented. We internalize and personalize that need, and express it through our own filters and goggles, while couching it as some selfless act of altruism - rather than admitting that we *choose* to document it because it speaks to us personally, motivates and drives us personally to fulfill an inner need.</p>

<p>Selfies are more honest than most of our photography.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Good try, Jeff, but narcissism is not simply being self-centered, as you claim. It is the excessive character of the phenomenon which makes it a pathological condition of our times. </p>