DSLRUsers.com

On a couple of occasions Matt K and I have discussed - lamented, almost - the state of modern photography.

Yes, it's great that photography is seemingly everywhere. Almost everywhere you turn, you see someone with a camera, be it a DSLR, FSLR, maybe a PHD, or just a cellphone with a camera embedded. The emergence of readily accessible photography is surely a good thing, is it not?

The issue that Matt has highlighted though - and I am in 100% agreement with his point of view as I understood it - is that all of these images are stored on the camera, and perhaps never get moved from that device. Maybe they do - they might get relocated from the device to a computer, and maybe even, subsequently, to a CD or DVD.

But how many of those images will be printed? Handed down, physically, for people to look at, for people to remember events of days gone by, for historians in the future to understand how we lived our lives, today?

And for our children, and our children's children, to look at, learn about, and to love their forebears?

In his blog entry entitled Fave Picks, Marcus Bell makes this point, providing a couple of beautiful images to illustrate his words perfectly. The first of the images he presented will have been made as a print, many years ago. In the days BDSLR. The second of those images would have been recorded digitally, but I hope - I pray - that in keeping with the points Marcus has expressed, a print of this image has been provided to each of the lovely ladies in this image.

I know that I don't print anywhere near enough of the images that I shoot. Hell, I don;t shoot anywhere near enough images, these days. Two different, but very closely related, problems that are entirely within my realm.

Who else shares these concerns? Are my concerns unfounded?

What are your thoughts?

I think this comes down to the very essence off why we do what we do, and I don't know if there's a more important topic that we, as photographers, can discuss.

We have millions of bits of information stored on our hard drives which, when used via the appropriate application, become photographs. However, so few of them are used. We have taken hundreds if not thousands of photos of Alex over the last 18 months, which are all stored and filed on the hard drives. I don't imagine we will be passing one or two harddrives to him on his 21st birthday and saying "these are photographic reminders of your childhood - enjoy". The sad reality is that many of these images (probably over 90%) will be lost in the future.

That said, we have printed off quite a number of our prized photos of Alex, our honeymoon or other special occasions, and are currently preparing a couple of photo books of Alex for Christmas gifts (including to ourselves).

I also have a box of prints and a small box full of film that needs to be developed.

The short of it is that I agree with Gary's comments - to many of our images remain data as opposed to printed photographs.

I agree that too many images remain data rather than become photos. I will readily admit that I print far less than I should.

But the flipside it that I find that I shoot far more frames than I would if I was shooting purely film. I have noticed people around me mashing their shutter release making there camera sing the crescendo of high fps shooting. Do we really need to do so? I have been steadily weaning myself of the habit and trying to treat each shutter actuation as a frame of film (still shooting more than film though) and being very picky about my keepers, yet I still dont print enough in my mind.

I think I will have to choose a stack of photos and get them printed. Important topic Gary!!

I totally agree, i would have to say i have well and truly over 3000 images on my external hard drive and probably the same on the main cpu. Out of those, i think i have printed out about 500 -800 max. I love it when the local shops do 1/2 price printing, but am i the only one to find the quality drop when they do the sale prints?
Having said that i havne't printed many photo's, i remember growing up the rare occasions my parents would have their camera out and actually using it. My photo album from when i was a child has probably 50 photo's max, my elder sister has max of 100 and the eldest in the family has the most approx 150, so looking back my parents weren't big users of a camera, where as i am, i am using mine close to daily, if not at least twice a week and already i have over 200pics per child and my eldest is onky 4....so i'd have to say their albums are going to be a lot fuller then mine ever was!!
So i guess you can look at it both ways, we don't devalop every shot, but we are able to save them for future devaloping if need be.
I recently heard that the cd's we've all been saving our images onto will stop working in the future.....apparently they just die. So how often should we be checking our stored images? and will we one day loose those precious memories we didn't get printed? scary thought, makes me want to go get some printed!

I think i have more photos now i use digital, and i think i devalop more, actually i still have 5 rolls of film from my old slr days to be devaloped, so I agree but then i disagree i'm kinda on the fence!! hehehe

An interesting topic, Gary. Thanks for starting it.

I guess my first question would be, is printing the only target of photography? Certainly, in the early times it was, but there are other ways to display a photograph.

I guess for personal use, a printed photograph has the most use. You can hang in on a wall, you can put it on your desk, you can even put in in a wallet. The number of people you can share it with is still limited. If it was hanging in a public place, like a gallery, you could increase the number of people that see it and hopefully appreciated it.

For archive, a printed photograph is usually seen as the most compatible way to archive it as it is not dependent on the current technology, as long as it is printed on archival paper with archival inks. Interestingly, I believe a lot of museums and other institutions are digitising prints for archival purposes. I guess as long as the institutions stay viable, they can convert the digital versions into the latest formats to ensure they are still accessible.

I'm not sure, however, that a print is the only or the ultimate target for a photograph.

Take photojournalists. With the decline (and likely demise) of printed newspapers, a large amount of their work ends up on the web for consumption. Does this make the photographs any less valuable or poignant?

I shot slides for 20 years. I have 3 filing cabinet draws full of slides. I did print some of them. Some of the prints ended up on the walls. A lot ended up in portfolios which ended up in draws. Not many people got to see the photos. Some ended up published in books, but that was only a small number. I now shoot digital. I have printed some and a few people get to see them. I have published a lot on the web and a lot more people get to see them. Which is better?

I forgot to mention my father - see what happens when your wife starts talking to you in the middle of a post.

My father was an avid amateur photographer. He shot a lot of black and white and printed an a hell of a lot. We have prints all over the place. They are mostly in poor condition and we as kids don't really know the best thing to do with them. There is a lot of interesting information there which will probably degrade and get tossed.

I don't agree entirely.
The last of my parents died last year and one of the jobs we did was to go through the family album and scan all the images there. First there were only about 200 photos all up. Many were degraded to an extent. Most were unlabeled or the label may have meant something at one time, but none of us living knew the references:
"Tony and I at the dam" probably meant a lot to the person who wrote the message, but who was Tony? who was "I" ( not recognisably either of my parents) Where was the dam? When was the photo taken? What were they doing?

Today's digital storage means that at the very least we get the date the photo was taken. These days I put Geotags on all photos, so my descendants will know where the photo was taken. I am trying to remember to use tags to describe the subject of the photo. At the very least I put it into a folder with a descriptive name : /family/Stephenson/Jean/Birthday/90 for last weekend's photos.
Printed copies lose all that information.

Then I back them up to HDD. I do not trust CDs as a long term storage medium I have been burnt with the dye layer coming adrift before, and the technology is how old? Actually, I back them up to 2 HDDs, and I check the state of the drives once a year. As soon as one disk gets a single error, I buy another, and make another copy of it. When I was able I kept the copies in geographically disparate locations. WHen the technology changes and USB drives are being phased out, I will copy them to whatever system replaces that technology. I will also keep the original together with an old laptop so they can be read. Compare that to the shoe box under the stairs. Of course, come the revolution, and we no longer have electricity, the shoe box will shine, but I suspect my descendants will be more interested in starting a fire than looking at old images in that eventuality

I missed ATJ's post. My first line references Gary's position, not Andrew's

Good points all,

ATJ wrote:I guess my first question would be, is printing the only target of photography? Certainly, in the early times it was, but there are other ways to display a photograph.

I agree with Andrew, What about digital photo frames? - I have a 10" frame that can display 1 or 1000's of photos in a slideshow - Some of my best (IMO ) photos have never been printed, but people still see them when they come to my house.

Mr Darcy wrote:Then I back them up to HDD. I do not trust CDs as a long term storage medium I have been burnt with the dye layer coming adrift before, and the technology is how old? Actually, I back them up to 2 HDDs, and I check the state of the drives once a year. As soon as one disk gets a single error, I buy another, and make another copy of it. When I was able I kept the copies in geographically disparate locations. WHen the technology changes and USB drives are being phased out, I will copy them to whatever system replaces that technology.

But who wants, to, when the family is around, say, for Christmas dinner, sit around at the bloody computer, looking at the images?

While your points are valid (and I don't necessarily disagree with them) I cannot help but feel that there is something that we are losing here, if it's not already lost.

There is a certain aesthetic about sitting down, on the couch, with the kids, the family, the dog, and looking at, laughing at, and just generally enjoying the images in the family album. The sitting around on the couch, perhaps the kids on the floor ... there are some extra tactile elements that this brings to the party; some elements of body language and person to person interaction, that I don't think exists as we look at this stuff on the pc.

Do we do that around the PC? If we do, is that the same experience? Is it as pleasant?

And you don't need to be plugged in to use the family album.

The digital photo frames ... an interesting addition to the discussion. Are they really not much more than a $100 replacement for a $3 album? Do you want to sit down and watch one of them while IT goes through the photos, not you? I am very much a technologist, but I have yet to acquire one. I have thought about getting one for my mum, but I am yet to be convinced that these are the right solution to the problem.

I'm not yet certain of what the problem actually is, truth be told.

And ... let's take this further: there are a number of museums now, who seek out family photos. Perhaps from immigrants, post-war, relating to their experiences during their travel to Oz, or their earlier experiences here as immigrants. There are books being published, using images collected from, for instance, soldiers who served in Vietnam.

These are all using resources collected from the hard copies of images made at the time. My point is that today, we will see people at Circular Quay, the zoo, Southbank, Lygon St, maybe even "Tony and I at the dam" ... whomever and wherever ... and they will be using their PHDs, or their cellphones, or their shoephones, and they will making those images of their good times.

But what will THEY be then doing with those images? Will they be printing them? Do they understand the significance of proper archival techniques?

Perhaps we may need to stand ourselves aside a little from the debate, as I suspect that we are little different in this regard; mostly, we probably have some understanding of these issues. Does your next door neighbour? Do you work colleagues?

ATJ wrote:I forgot to mention my father - see what happens when your wife starts talking to you in the middle of a post.

You could always tell her to ...

And then start scanning the "properties for rent" pages.

I agree Gary - we seem to be losing the tactile feel of photos. Your comments around sitting down with the family to lok at an album are particularly telling I feel.

gstark wrote:The digital photo frames ... an interesting addition to the discussion. Are they really not much more than a $100 replacement for a $3 album? Do you want to sit down and watch one of them while IT goes through the photos, not you? I am very much a technologist, but I have yet to acquire one. I have thought about getting one for my mum, but I am yet to be convinced that these are the right solution to the problem.

Just as an FYI the model I have has a remote which can control the slide show so you can scroll through the pics at your leasure - without leaving the couch

Not a substitute for an album, but it's interesting that technology is getting closer and closer.

maybe there will be a photo viewing e-reader PC style device in the future?

ATJ wrote:I guess my first question would be, is printing the only target of photography? Certainly, in the early times it was, but there are other ways to display a photograph.

Yes, absolutely.

But my point goes beyond the concept of just "display". Or at least I would like to think that it does.

I guess for personal use, a printed photograph has the most use. You can hang in on a wall, you can put it on your desk, you can even put in in a wallet. The number of people you can share it with is still limited. If it was hanging in a public place, like a gallery, you could increase the number of people that see it and hopefully appreciated it.

Yes. Let's go down this path.

The number of people with whom you can share a printed with is limited. No doubt about it.

Is that a problem? Beyond your family, with whom do you wish to share your family images?

I see that lots of images get posted on sites like MySpace, Facebook, personal blogs, etc. Apart from the original posters, who, truly, gives a damn?

In the first instance, is not the true worth of these images within the realm of the family?

30 years hence, perhaps that is still the case?

Beyond 30 years - and I have no real understanding or concept of what an appropriate period of time might be - some of those images will attain community significance, but how will this be identified? Will those images on Facebook, MySpace, etc be considered? Or will they be too ... public to be of real cultural significance?

I should point out that, within the context of the subject as I have raised it here, I really an not interested in discussing art photography. I am more interested, here, in a discussion of personal photography. That photography which shapes our very being, from the day we're born, until our passing.

For archive, a printed photograph is usually seen as the most compatible way to archive it as it is not dependent on the current technology, as long as it is printed on archival paper with archival inks. Interestingly, I believe a lot of museums and other institutions are digitising prints for archival purposes. I guess as long as the institutions stay viable, they can convert the digital versions into the latest formats to ensure they are still accessible.

Museums have facilities that permit them to use various technologies as they emerge and develop. I'm not interested in museums. Does the guy behind the counter at the supermarket understand the concepts of archiving their images? How about the lady in the dress shop - does she?

I'm not sure, however, that a print is the only or the ultimate target for a photograph.

I'm not sure that it's not.

Yesterday, in Melbourne, we saw the funeral of Carl Williams' mother. The SMH reports that "A framed picture of Carl Williams embracing his mother sat on her white coffin".

How else could that be done - the tribute that this represents - with grace, and with dignity, but without a physical print?

I'm following this discussion with interest.
Gary, in your original post you asked how would historians in the future understand how we lived our lives, today? Surely the fact that we choose to view our photos electronically says a lot for the way we live today and should be part of our legacy. No doubt a lot of photos will be lost but then I'm sure that a lot of printed photos have ended up in land fills in the past or lost in fires, we still have enough samples to look at. I'm sure electronic media will be no different.

phillipb wrote:Gary, in your original post you asked how would historians in the future understand how we lived our lives, today? Surely the fact that we choose to view our photos electronically says a lot for the way we live today and should be part of our legacy.

Phillip,

Might I counter your point by suggesting that, as a society, the past-time of viewing our photographs occupies but a minor - insignificant even - part of our activities? Please remember that I'm specifically trying to exclude ourselves (photography enthusiasts and professionals) from this discussion, as I don't believe that we are, in this particular instance, typical of the rest of society.

While I take your point to some extent, I think that your point might be better expressed in terms suggesting that we should be seeing (and saving and archiving) prints of ourselves (our society) viewing images on a PC.

I think I understand what I just wrote.

Sitting down with family and or friends to go through your pics of holidays, children growing up, your first mate - what a load of boring bollocks. Generally speaking the photos are totally boring to all but the person who took them or who is in them. We are living in a different age and therefore approach many things in a different way than days of yore. Instead of the cinema we can rent a DVD and not have to put up with some feckwit on their phone in the theatre. On the other hand if your preferences are towards live theatre and opera etc., then there are plenty of places one can go. If you want to look at some excellent photography then there are many galleries that will satisfy. 99% of all photographs taken on this planet are not worth a cursory glance.

Personally I prefer to live for today and tomorrow rather than in the past no matter how wondeful it was. I can also show my pics to anyone that is interested, in wonderful high def on that amazing product that superceded the slide viewer

gstark wrote:Museums have facilities that permit them to use various technologies as they emerge and develop. I'm not interested in museums. Does the guy behind the counter at the supermarket understand the concepts of archiving their images? How about the lady in the dress shop - does she?

You seem to be saying that printed photos are better for the "average guy" but also consider that that person is likely to buy a "magnetic" photo album from Kmarget to put those prints in. These do horrible things to photos after a few years. That shoe box I keep going on about is far better. Average Jo is also unlikely to understand or use archival paper or ink to print them either.

There are two issues here that are being mixed up. Display of images; and archival storage. They are often, almost certainly in non digital media, mutually exclusive.

Archiving non digitally is a matter of ensuring a stable environment that excludes light, acid, moisture etc. Archiving digitally means ensuring the media remains intact, and providing the means to retrieve the images in the future. Each has advantages and pitfalls.

gstark wrote:But who wants, to, when the family is around, say, for Christmas dinner, sit around at the bloody computer, looking at the images?

Displaying means ensuring access to light and the images. Cuddling up around the sofa is one option. I can't remember when I last did this though. Certainly it was long before I went digital. Another option is to run a display in the background. This is easy to do digitally. Possible, but difficult non-digitally. Those who want to watch can those that don't can do other things. Personally, over Christmas dinner I will be using the latter approach. The Computer will be connected to the TV, and the slides will run in the background. No one will huddle around the computer, but anyone who cares to can watch the images. Those who don't care to need not worry about offending by saying "no I don't want to be bored to tears looking and family snaps."

gstark wrote:There is a certain aesthetic about sitting down, on the couch, with the kids, the family, the dog, and looking at, laughing at, and just generally enjoying the images in the family album. The sitting around on the couch, perhaps the kids on the floor ... there are some extra tactile elements that this brings to the party; some elements of body language and person to person interaction, that I don't think exists as we look at this stuff on the pc.

Even though my dad was an avid photographer with thousands upon thousands of images, most printed, I do not remember one occasion from my childhood where we sat around as a family looking at the family photo album. I'm not even sure we had a family photo album. Interestingly, my dad did from his childhood (and he was born in 1909), so perhaps they did as a family. I think those albums are around somewhere, but as Greg mentions, there are lots of photos of family members with people we can't identify. And there are even fewer captions. My father died at the start of 1971 so we can't even find out who those people were.

Now... I do remember as a child looking through MY photo albums of photos I took myself. As Chris suggests, these mean something to me, and I enjoy looking through the album. My photographs from the last 5-8 years are mostly digital. I browse through them from time to time on my computer. I get the same enjoyment out of doing that as I did going through the album.

My family are not particularly close and don't even live close to each other. We're lucky if we get together twice a year (Christmas and our mother's birthday). When we do, we don't sit around looking at photo albums. Last Friday, my brother sent me and my siblings, plus his son (who also lives some distance away) a scanned picture of a photo of his daughter and friend at her school formal. The picture appeared in the local Lithgow rag and as a proud dad he sent it on. While this started out as a print (at least when he got it), it was scanned so it could be sent all around NSW in an instant.

I take a dive trip just about every year. I take photographs on the trip which I publish on one or more of my web sites. People I meet on the trip can look at the photos and email me to tell me how much they enjoy them. It would not be easy to do that with prints. They are not family, but they are people with whom I spent an intense week and these photographs mean a lot more to them than they would to my family or most other people (as Chris so eloquently states).

I thought I'd post an experience I had which I felt was "some-what"relevant, while overseas we were invited back to a friends place for a relaxed dinner party. Most nights they run their apple tv unit playing background music and randomly cycling through all their photos spanning a good 40+ years of their happy snaps. While I only knew 2 or 3 people in most the images it was a great talking point over dinner, and brought back plenty of memories for those that had been in them, and gave me a wider insight into their friends and lives I hadn't been a part off. My friends said they love having all sorts of images thrown at them, and they'll often call an old friend after having seen a picture of them at a birthday, or at a party.

Essentially its really only a digital photoframe, but when your talking a 52" TV not a 10" LCD, it definite allows a group to sit around and enjoy the images, similar to the whole cuddle up on the couch scenario.

On a more personal note, I spent most of a week up visiting my grandparents recently and we had a great time getting the slide projector out (a little mouldy) and going through a few hundred slides, some from before my dad was born, and in doing so learnt a lot about my grandparents and their lives that they had never shared with me before.

sirhc55 wrote:Sitting down with family and or friends to go through your pics of holidays, children growing up, your first mate - what a load of boring bollocks

Frequently, yes.

Then again, many families get pleasure from doing this. Or from using events like this to embarrass their kids.

Generally speaking the photos are totally boring to all but the person who took them or who is in them.

Yep. I've already said exactly that.

But I tend to think that this is more true in the immediate "now", and perhaps over the next few years ... perhaps up to a generation on.

I would love to hear more female points of view on this too, btw. Lindy lost her mum just over two years ago, and I know how vital the images she has of her mum are to her and to her daughters.

We are living in a different age and therefore approach many things in a different way than days of yore.

Some of us are. My mum has a cellphone, and I think she used it for the second time this year just last Monday I cannot get her to consider using a computer, however. She has a DVD player, but watched videos on VHS.

And yes, she just got a speeding ticket a couple of weeks back, so she's very comfortable with the concept of digital photography.

Personally I prefer to live for today and tomorrow rather than in the past no matter how wondeful it was. I can also show my pics to anyone that is interested, in wonderful high def on that amazing product that superceded the slide viewer

While yes, you can, I challenge that it's not as personable as people fussing over an album.

Mr Darcy wrote:

gstark wrote:Museums have facilities that permit them to use various technologies as they emerge and develop. I'm not interested in museums. Does the guy behind the counter at the supermarket understand the concepts of archiving their images? How about the lady in the dress shop - does she?

You seem to be saying that printed photos are better for the "average guy" but also consider that that person is likely to buy a "magnetic" photo album from Kmarget to put those prints in. These do horrible things to photos after a few years. That shoe box I keep going on about is far better. Average Jo is also unlikely to understand or use archival paper or ink to print them either.

My point is summed up in your last sentence here: "Average Jo is also unlikely to understand or use archival paper or ink to print them either."

Yes, those magnetic albums can destroy images more quickly than one has any right to demand, but that's what many people use.

I have no quarrel with your alternative suggested use of the shoebox, btw. It permits the same physical aesthetic that I described earlier in terms of the physical interaction that many methods of digital display don't seem to be conducive to.

There are two issues here that are being mixed up.

Not by me.

gstark wrote:But who wants, to, when the family is around, say, for Christmas dinner, sit around at the bloody computer, looking at the images?

Displaying means ensuring access to light and the images. Cuddling up around the sofa is one option. I can't remember when I last did this though. Certainly it was long before I went digital.

We still do this, occasionally, at my mum's. And please also refer to my earlier comments regarding Lindy.

Another option is to run a display in the background. This is easy to do digitally. Possible, but difficult non-digitally. Those who want to watch can those that don't can do other things. Personally, over Christmas dinner I will be using the latter approach.

I would actually consider that be offensive, and from two different perspectives. I'm certainly not having a go at anyone, but to me, the purpose of inviting people - friends and family - over, and particularly for events like Christmas, Pesach, Thanksgiving, and the like, is specifically to interact with those people. As a host, I consider that it's offensive to my guests to have a slideshow running - it's as if I don't really want them here, I don;t want to talk with them, and I'm disrespecting them. That may well be the case, of course, but that's probably not the message I wish to convey.

As a guest, I expect - possibly even demand - some semblance of attention: you invited me, so feed and entertain me, dammit! Perhaps we'll have a break at some point so that you may bore me with your slides of your trip to upper nowhere, but not the whole bloody evening, thank you.

ATJ wrote:

gstark wrote:There is a certain aesthetic about sitting down, on the couch, with the kids, the family, the dog, and looking at, laughing at, and just generally enjoying the images in the family album. The sitting around on the couch, perhaps the kids on the floor ... there are some extra tactile elements that this brings to the party; some elements of body language and person to person interaction, that I don't think exists as we look at this stuff on the pc.

Even though my dad was an avid photographer with thousands upon thousands of images, most printed, I do not remember one occasion from my childhood where we sat around as a family looking at the family photo album.

Perhaps my family is slightly less dysfunctional than I give it credit for.

Again, you're including "us", but as I've noted a couple of times, I don't consider "us" to be necessarily typical: we know about these things (hopefully) and I suspect that makes us "different" from the average Joe or Jolene.

I'm not even sure we had a family photo album. Interestingly, my dad did from his childhood (and he was born in 1909), so perhaps they did as a family. I think those albums are around somewhere, but as Greg mentions, there are lots of photos of family members with people we can't identify. And there are even fewer captions. My father died at the start of 1971 so we can't even find out who those people were.

My father died in 1958. My grandparents were victims of the Nazis in the war and I never had the pleasure of knowing them. Perhaps that is colouring my point of view here? The (very few) photos that my mum has are quite important to me.

My photographs from the last 5-8 years are mostly digital. I browse through them from time to time on my computer.

This is of interest to me: I don't - not consciously - do this.

And getting back to my point that I think that we are different from others, I note that when we take photos of a family outing, my mum always wants hard copies .... and I still come back to the point I made in my opening post: with Jo and Jolene: will they move their images off their batphones and on to some other form of more permanent storage (as we would do) or will the image of them, drunk at last week's Christmas party eventually just be deleted to be replaced with the image of them, drunk, at the NYE inebriations along the harbour foreshores?

My family are not particularly close and don't even live close to each other.

My mum lives across the road. My sister lives two blocks away. I've spoken with my sister just once, so far this year. More frequently with my mum, but this lack of contact actually saddens me.

Seriously.

We're lucky if we get together twice a year (Christmas and our mother's birthday).

That's more frequently than with us.

But again, I want a female PoV here: my sister speaks with our mum daily. Lindy, prior to her mum's passing, lived under the same roof, and was nearly a full time carer as her health declined. Another friend - Vicky, whom we've used as a model for one of our lighting workshops, is currently acting as a nearly full-time carer for her mum in a similar scenario.

While that may not seem all that relevant, I suspect that, deep down, it may be very relevant.

Last Friday, my brother sent me and my siblings, plus his son (who also lives some distance away) a scanned picture of a photo of his daughter and friend at her school formal. The picture appeared in the local Lithgow rag and as a proud dad he sent it on. While this started out as a print (at least when he got it), it was scanned so it could be sent all around NSW in an instant.

Fast forward 30 years, and put yourself in the position of your brother, and especially in the position of his daughter. Please share your thoughts within that context. Please share with us their thoughts.

Fast forward another 30 years. Please share with us the thoughts of your niece's children.

I would extend the argument to say that the computer and the internet are generally introspective media that detract from human contact and emotion. I was just reading an argument a day or so ago that said that psychologists were worried about the conversational skills of our children who are growing up to be totally absorbed by TV and other digital electronic media.

I have, at various times, had collections of photographs printed as photo books from Momento. We have found that these are great to pass around when talking about the holiday in France or the wedding in Greece. Much easier (and far more interactive) than throwing the images onto the plasma screen IMO.

This years Christmas presents for my family are calendars printed by Snapfish of my best images from 2008. I previously did this in 2007 and 2006 and I keep getting asked about them. (Although, I must say that I am glad that there are only 12 months in a year - I might be struggling to have more than that many decent images! ) Better for everyone than undies or chocolates.

Although I prefer to look at my images on a PC, I don't expect anyone else to. And certainly not a group of people. The books and calendars really work for me.

Craig,

Alpha_7 wrote:I thought I'd post an experience I had which I felt was "some-what"relevant,

Definitely relevant, and more than just "somewhat". Thanx.

While I only knew 2 or 3 people in most the images it was a great talking point over dinner, and brought back plenty of memories for those that had been in them

I'm happy to have the music as wallpaper. In the context of a dinner party, having a slideshow as wallpaper may well be acceptable too: I've seen this done at twenty-first birthdays, too.

But is it the same in a more intimate situation?

Would somebody do this at a wake? I can see that a photo album or three might be pulled out at a wake; would you put on a slide show on your plasma?

I have no idea of the answers: I'm merely exploring the questions.

That said, your point regarding giving you a further insight into these people and their lives is well made.

Essentially its really only a digital photoframe, but when your talking a 52" TV not a 10" LCD, it definite allows a group to sit around and enjoy the images, similar to the whole cuddle up on the couch scenario.

Which echos the way games are starting to be played today: instead of sitting around a table (or on the floor) with a Monopoly board, people are starting to sit together on the couch and play console games.

Interesting.

On a more personal note, I spent most of a week up visiting my grandparents recently and we had a great time getting the slide projector out (a little mouldy) and going through a few hundred slides, some from before my dad was born, and in doing so learnt a lot about my grandparents and their lives that they had never shared with me before.

And here's a question that I have no answer for, but it makes me query myself even more: where is the difference drawn between a slide projector and a video projector or a large screen tv? Essentially, there is none, in terms of the effective way in which the media is delivered.

There is a difference though, and that lies in the source of the media: a slide is physical, an digital image is logical and virtual. You can hold a slide up to the light, and you can see and perhaps appreciate the image. What do you see when you hold a CF card, or a CD ROM, up to the light?

gstark wrote:Fast forward 30 years, and put yourself in the position of your brother, and especially in the position of his daughter. Please share your thoughts within that context. Please share with us their thoughts.

Fast forward another 30 years. Please share with us the thoughts of your niece's children.

Well, it is difficult for me to know someone else's position and even more difficult to predict what will happen in 30 and 60 years time, but I suspect it will be even more along the lines of sharing photographs (or their equivalents: videos? holographs?) electronically and may even be replaced by something even beyond that. Thirty years ago computers were only just making headway as consumer products and only really for techno nerds. Al Gore hadn't even invented t'Internet then.

gstark wrote:Would somebody do this at a wake? I can see that a photo album or three might be pulled out at a wake; would you put on a slide show on your plasma?

I'm sure I have seen this done at public funerals (as reported on TV, when the cameras were allowed in). It may not have been a plasma, but it was a projector of some sort, either slide or digital.

gstark wrote:There is a difference though, and that lies in the source of the media: a slide is physical, an digital image is logical and virtual. You can hold a slide up to the light, and you can see and perhaps appreciate the image. What do you see when you hold a CF card, or a CD ROM, up to the light?

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of that. If I was running a slide show, while I might be able to hold up a physical slide to the light, I would certainly not let my viewers do the same. For them, the slides are in the magazine and the magazine is in the projector. While they may understand better how a slide projector works, it is still just a device that is placing images on a screen.

ATJ wrote:

gstark wrote:Fast forward 30 years, and put yourself in the position of your brother, and especially in the position of his daughter. Please share your thoughts within that context. Please share with us their thoughts.

Fast forward another 30 years. Please share with us the thoughts of your niece's children.

Well, it is difficult for me to know someone else's position and even more difficult to predict what will happen in 30 and 60 years time, but I suspect it will be even more along the lines of sharing photographs (or their equivalents: videos? holographs?) electronically and may even be replaced by something even beyond that. Thirty years ago computers were only just making headway as consumer products and only really for techno nerds. Al Gore hadn't even invented t'Internet then.

That wasn't the question though, Andrew. I was hoping you might want to try to anticipate how your niece's kids might feel about this image that your brother has just shared with you. I realise that this is a difficult - impossible - task, but that is essentially the point that I am trying to make.

What is the future value of this image? Not just in monetary terms, but in emotional terms, and in cultural terms.

What is the risk, to society, if we lose those values?

the foto fanatic wrote:I would extend the argument to say that the computer and the internet are generally introspective media that detract from human contact and emotion.

And the human contact, and the emotion, are things that I value very highly. If you're saying, Trevor, that computers tend to reduce the value of these concepts, then I would agree.

I was just reading an argument a day or so ago that said that psychologists were worried about the conversational skills of our children who are growing up to be totally absorbed by TV and other digital electronic media.

And there was an article in today's SMH reporting that a recent scientific study had been undertaken, and it found that the exposure of children to computers led to obesity and smoking etc. The report (in the SMH) went on abotu this and that, and all manner of scientific BS.

I suspect it might have missed the point that kids today are spending a lot of time in front of the computer and tv ... and are not out and about running around, playing in the park, etc. Yes, they're getting fat, because they're inactive!

Not that I'm in any position to comment.

I have, at various times, had collections of photographs printed as photo books from Momento. We have found that these are great to pass around when talking about the holiday in France or the wedding in Greece. Much easier (and far more interactive) than throwing the images onto the plasma screen IMO.

Yes.

Although I prefer to look at my images on a PC, I don't expect anyone else to. And certainly not a group of people.

Again, yes.

ATJ wrote:I'm not sure I understand the relevance of that. If I was running a slide show, while I might be able to hold up a physical slide to the light, I would certainly not let my viewers do the same.

But the slides do not need to be a part of a slideshow.

And the slides, as physical media, need nothing at all extra in order to be able to be viewed. As long as I have a light source - any light source - I can view a print, or a slide. I need a hell of a lot more to view most forms of digital media.

gstark wrote:And the slides, as physical media, need nothing at all extra in order to be able to be viewed. As long as I have a light source - any light source - I can view a print, or a slide. I need a hell of a lot more to view most forms of digital media.

Well, yes, but I think you are being overly simplistic.

For example, for me to view just one of my slides, I have to first find it, among 3 draws in a filing cabinet. I have them sorted by date so if I can remember when the photograph was taken, I can probably find it quite quickly. But, I also have to ensure my hands are very clean and I can't (or won't) do it while drinking a beer. I can hold the the slide up to the ceiling light and get an overall sense of the image, but can't see any detail. I can use my lupe, even holding it up to the light to see detail, but I lose the overall view of the image. I have a small handheld slide viewer somewhere, but I'd have to find that, too. I may do this for 2 or 3 slides, but then I'd give up because I have a sore neck.

Compare this to my digital images. Yes, I need a computer to view them, but I already have this. It is already turned on, and now that I use Lightroom, all my digital images, taken since February 2000, are online and available to view. I even have some scanned slides online. For most of the images taken before February this year, I still have the difficulty of finding them by date, but most of the images taken since I started using Lightroom are keyworded or have other tags to allow me to find them more quickly. Some of the pre-Feb 2008 can also be found this way. My hands don't have to be clean. I can be sipping a beer while I look at them. I can look at one, 10 or 100 images without getting a sore neck.

Yes, this is just me, but I feel it would apply to just about anyone that has taken slides. People that shot neg film and had prints made by labs would probably be different, although I would think some of the difficulties apply.

I should add that it is only going to be ME looking at MY slides this way. I'm not going to allow someone else to look at them by hand. I doubt that any other slide shooter is going to allow anyone else look at their slides by hand. So, while being physical you can look at them without the need for much hardware, it is still a personal viewing which goes against most of your other points and is really no better than looking at a digital image on a computer.

I just thought of another benefit of the digital over the slides (for personal viewing). I can look at my digital images with a cat sitting on my lap (like I have right now ). To view the slides I have to be standing because of the location of the filing cabinet relative to the desk. Additionally, I'd be worried about cat hairs in the slides.

ATJ wrote:

gstark wrote:And the slides, as physical media, need nothing at all extra in order to be able to be viewed. As long as I have a light source - any light source - I can view a print, or a slide. I need a hell of a lot more to view most forms of digital media.

Well, yes, but I think you are being overly simplistic.

For example, for me to view just one of my slides, I have to first find it, among 3 draws in a filing cabinet.

Again, no.

Please, try to exclude yourself from this discussion. Think in terms of society. Jo and Jolene.

interesting topic and let me preface this by saying...each to their own. now with that out of the way i agree completely with gary, (that in itself, i'm struggling to come to terms with. lol)

i'd like to share some of my experiences with this...

this phenomenon of CD's/ DVD's etc is certianly not isolated. its actually the norm now. my kid brother stores all his photos on his camera. hundreds. thousands even. big memory card and he backs them up of course, but he takes his camera with him everywhere and one of those little yellow cords you plug into a tv and he can share his photos with anyone, anywhere. convenient as all hell yeah...but i dunno...it loses some humanity ?? thats not the right word i suppose.

most of the customers i;'ve ever had look at me like i'm a moron when i talk about print sizes and canvasses. "cant we just ge em on a DVD ?". to me this is soooo wierd cos i LOVE printed photos. i LOVE the tangiblity of it. the LOOK of a massive shot, the TEXTURE of print paper, the SOUND of flipping over those pages, the close proximity you hav with other people when you're thumbing thru an album...i LOVE IT when a client is convinced to get a pic blown up and printed. the look on their faces when you show them "in the flesh" a beautiful image of their family they can hang on the wall...its just priceless.

the closeness of an album. we have 3 massive albums of Lucas, all printed. large sizes for our faves and just simple 6x4's of the silly ones. hell, even the CRAP ones cos they are memories that make us smile. i cant tell you how often we will sit down with a bottle of red and just flick thru an album and have a good laugh or a hug when we see something we loe. i dont ever feel that connection when i view the same exact photos on the TV or LCD monitor.

the community feeling of an album. my uncle and his wife are here from canada. we have not see them in 25 years. on the weekend we sat on the back deck, as a big family, around 15 of us. and over a number of beers, wine, dessert and coffee we looked thru photo albums of Lucas. then after tha we pulled out the albums of when we were kids, when my parents were kids. 3 hours later....it was an amazing bonding experience for everyone that i dont think could have been captured on an LCD.

i recall thinking at the time, i'm actually a contributer to this. not just cos i'm part of the family...but becasue i am recording images that recall memories and bring people closer together. and again...that "feeling": cant be achieved thru a DVD and a computer...well...not in my world anyway.

thanks for listensing to my rant. lol

I dont really have an opinion either way, get them printed or not. Give it long enough, the medium on which it's printed will degrade anyway, or the medium in which it's stored, or a new image format in 30 years will mean all your jpgs cant be easily read. I print special images, a condensed version of my photographic life (very condensed I might add).

But, there is something that digital images on a lcd screen cant replace, and thats the feeling of turning the pages in an old album and looking at photos from 10, 20, 30 years ago and reliving those memories. To me, photo albums have a special feel to them, old pages, well worn, old photos that are slightly degraded, the albums have a smell to them, an aged musty smell, that fits them so well. That smell alone holds a thousand memories for me, sitting with my mother as a child looking through the books. My mother died 4 years ago, and that smell instantly takes me back to being a child by her side. No LCD 10" phot frame can do that.

Just my humble opinion.

gstark wrote:
There is a difference though, and that lies in the source of the media: a slide is physical, an digital image is logical and virtual. You can hold a slide up to the light, and you can see and perhaps appreciate the image. What do you see when you hold a CF card, or a CD ROM, up to the light?

Have you been smoking the funny baccy Gary Yes a slide is physical but is also logical and due to it being a past tense situation it is also virtual. To suggest holding a CF card or CD ROM et al to the light is touching on the banal

Rooz wrote:interesting topic and let me preface this by saying...each to their own. now with that out of the way i agree completely with gary, (that in itself, i'm struggling to come to terms with. lol)

!

most of the customers i;'ve ever had look at me like i'm a moron when i talk about print sizes and canvasses. "cant we just ge em on a DVD ?". to me this is soooo wierd cos i LOVE printed photos. i LOVE the tangiblity of it. the LOOK of a massive shot, the TEXTURE of print paper, the SOUND of flipping over those pages, the close proximity you hav with other people when you're thumbing thru an album...i LOVE IT when a client is convinced to get a pic blown up and printed. the look on their faces when you show them "in the flesh" a beautiful image of their family they can hang on the wall...its just priceless.

Yes ...

the community feeling of an album. my uncle and his wife are here from canada. we have not see them in 25 years. on the weekend we sat on the back deck, as a big family, around 15 of us. and over a number of beers, wine, dessert and coffee we looked thru photo albums of Lucas. then after tha we pulled out the albums of when we were kids, when my parents were kids. 3 hours later....it was an amazing bonding experience for everyone that i dont think could have been captured on an LCD.

That's exactly where I'm coming from. How do you place value on those images of when your parents were kids? That you, your uncle, your whole family, were able to share and to enjoy this experience, together, is surely one of the fundamental pleasures of photography?

That others - myself and my family included - are unable to do this, is surely to our detriment, and our loss? That we don't relate to "Tony and I at the dam" is not the point. The point is that at some point in the past, the ability to relate to
that image had been lost.

And as we move into the future, my fear is that this will happen more often, and there will be a greater cultural loss.

As Chris has put it, a loss of "community".

That is why I'm trying to exclude Andrew's point of view. It's not because it's different from mine. That's never at issue. It's not because i consider him wrong and myself right: this isn;'t a matter of right and wrong: I respect that Andrew has a different perspective, and I celebrate that difference.

But it's because he, like many of us here - myself included - are not representative of the community at large. We do (or should) understand the issues of archival of our images. Of correct storage. Of off-site backups. And so on.

The average Joe probably does not. Neither does Jolene.

Andrew stores his slides meticulously, protected from humidity, cross referenced. Probably three times.

Jolene throws her prints into a shoebox. Under the bed. And who know where the negs might be. The point is that Jolene has the prints.

Her younger cousin, Krystal-Kylie, only has her images on her cell.

Where, truly, is the value in that?

Raskill wrote: That smell alone holds a thousand memories for me, sitting with my mother as a child looking through the books. My mother died 4 years ago, and that smell instantly takes me back to being a child by her side. No LCD 10" phot frame can do that.

Yep!

sirhc55 wrote: Yes a slide is physical but is also logical and due to it being a past tense situation it is also virtual. To suggest holding a CF card or CD ROM et al to the light is touching on the banal

There's the difference between a graphic designer and a software engineer.

As an IT professional, the word "logical" is actually technical jargon to me, and that was my context. My apologies for using it in this manner.

Thanks for raising this topic Gary. It is a great read.

I bought a digital camera because (after the purchase of the camera) at the time, I considered it cheaper than purchasing and developing film ... But when you think about the cost of the PC and the cost of hard drives to store dedicated pictures on for the next how many years, is there really a saving?

I personally have my photos displayed randomly as my screen saver at home. I do sometimes just look at the photos displayed and reminisce about the time and place that they came from.

In answer to one of Gary's questions. My father-in-law (not PC or camera savvy) has purchased a digital camera. He takes them down to Harvey Norman's (or where ever) and gets everything on the card printed. When he comes over to my house (only occasionally, I back up his photos to my PC).

Another friend has just bought a digital camera. He did not know or realise that the cards could be reused, so he would buy another card when he had filled one up.

My wife gets some of the photos printed, which she puts into scrapbooks, but by and large, I have not had a huge amount of my digital photos printed. I have started to get into printing my favourite shots out (as MattK would say Print it Big!). I always looked at that, as positive about digital photos. You could take lots of photos, but you didn't have to get them all printed to get the "1 or 2 good ones" from a roll.

I have certainly taken more shots on my digital cameras than I did in the film days, because I can. I still find that I only have a smallish percentage that I am happy with though and would call keepers. I think in the current climate, where everyone has a digital camera, more people are taking more shots. Where previously you looked through 100 photos of someone's holiday, now you are looking through 1000 photos of the holiday, because they show you every snap they took.

gstark wrote:Please, try to exclude yourself from this discussion. Think in terms of society. Jo and Jolene.

Jo and Jolene don't shoot slides, so the whole slide debate is irrelevant to them.

OK, a female perspective.

I love prints.

I love all my old family photos and I look through them quite often with my family. In fact, I have my parents' albums here from when they were kids to scan and archive. I won't be printing them again at this stage but I will have them safe. Before I went digital I had an album full of pictures for each of my kids, for each year of their lives (not that many, admittedly). I love looking at old photographs and wondering about the history and the story behind them. I just don't think I could get that from seeing them on the screen.

I think that looking at photos on a screen is nowhere near the same as having an album. I also plan to make photo books now instead of printing and making an album, and many of my friends love looking at photo books.

I have also had a digital photo frame for a year and not used it at all!

IMHO I would like to see more albums and prints, less digital, although it is very convenient for keeping in touch with remote relatives and friends.

Lee

gstark wrote:Would somebody do this at a wake? I can see that a photo album or three might be pulled out at a wake; would you put on a slide show on your plasma?

Funny you should say that, just a few weeks ago I attended a funeral where a slide show was projected on a screen in the church towards the end of the service. When the slideshow was over, there was a spontaneous round of applause. I have never seen that happen at a funeral before.

As far as leaving us enthusiasts out of the discussion, I really don't see why we should. 50 years ago photos were only taken by enthusiasts or professionals, your average Jo probably didn't own a camera let alone have any input on what method of archiving they should use.

For my mother's funeral earlier this year, I produced a slide show of photographs depicting her life, family and friends who were special to her, and set to a piece of her favorite music.

Some relatives were not sure how this would be received or if it would be too emotional, but in fact it was unanimously felt that it was a wonderful and uplifting part of the service.

It was respectful and dignified, and yet it brought back many happy memories to those present. In 3 minutes, it described her life in a way that was far more eloquent than mere words or photographs could have done. It was a labour of love, and I'm glad I did it.

I now have the task of going through thousands of family photos and scanning, repairing and copying them. There are so many prints I don't know what to do with them all.

From my perspective, having all those printed images is both a joy and a burden. I love the digital display of images that we can avail ourselves of today, but we need to balance it by remembering to print the really special ones.

ATJ wrote:

gstark wrote:Please, try to exclude yourself from this discussion. Think in terms of society. Jo and Jolene.

Jo and Jolene don't shoot slides, so the whole slide debate is irrelevant to them.

Well, you were the one who originally raised the topic of slides but Jo, Jolene, and Krystal-Kylie are really where my focus in this discussion lies.

So yes, the slide debate is irrelevant in their context, and thus the slide debate is irrelevant, as the debate is exactly about the photos made by Jo, Jolene, and, of course, Krystal-Kylie.

Russell,

rflower wrote:I bought a digital camera because (after the purchase of the camera) at the time, I considered it cheaper than purchasing and developing film ... But when you think about the cost of the PC and the cost of hard drives to store dedicated pictures on for the next how many years, is there really a saving?

I do think so. I would answer your question by asking one in return: did you buy your computer in order to process and store images?

I think that, for many people, the answer would be in the negative: they would already have the pc, and postprocessing an storage just becomes another task that the computer is put to.

That said, the cost of media, the cost of storage, perhaps the investment in a photo quality printer ... these items might then start to impact upon the cost equation that you're looking at, but in the main, I'd say yes.

By way of observation, what's the cost of a roll of film, plus processing, these days? My guess is that four rolls of 135-36, purchased plus D & P, would come to about, if not exceed, the cost as a 500GB HDD.

And we are (correctly) excluding from the debate the cost of an enlarger and all the gear one needs in order to do wet processing. Which would not be too far off the cost of a desktop pc but no monitor.

In answer to one of Gary's questions. My father-in-law (not PC or camera savvy) has purchased a digital camera. He takes them down to Harvey Norman's (or where ever) and gets everything on the card printed. When he comes over to my house (only occasionally, I back up his photos to my PC).

The digital equivalent of getting his rolls of film processed at the minilab. At least he is getting prints. Is he also getting "negs" on a CD? Does he also get, as I have seen in some instances, a small sheet with proofs?

Another friend has just bought a digital camera. He did not know or realise that the cards could be reused, so he would buy another card when he had filled one up.

This is quite sad.

At least he now has a good supply of cards upon which he may store is images, pending processing.

But does he get them printed? What of the images when he moves them off his cards? To where?

My wife gets some of the photos printed,

Exactly.

Where previously you looked through 100 photos of someone's holiday, now you are looking through 1000 photos of the holiday, because they show you every snap they took.

Yes, it's a bit like cable tv or having a digital recording studio in your computer: having more channels doesn't improve the quality. Having the ability to record oneself in glorious multi-track stereo does not mean that one should.


Lee,

Marvin wrote:OK, a female perspective.

I love prints.

I'm getting a theme here, and it's pretty much along the lines I was expecting.

I love looking at old photographs and wondering about the history and the story behind them. I just don't think I could get that from seeing them on the screen.

Neither do I.

I have also had a digital photo frame for a year and not used it at all!

Now, that is a telling statement.

IMHO I would like to see more albums and prints, less digital, although it is very convenient for keeping in touch with remote relatives and friends.

And this, too, is a very valuable statement. I suspect that some people in this discussion are confusing some elements of the discussion.

I have no problem with the convenience of the digital medium within which we now work to produce images. But is the production of images about convenience?

Or is it about creating some sort of a record of something that has occurred, very frequently involving people?


Phillip,

phillipb wrote:As far as leaving us enthusiasts out of the discussion, I really don't see why we should. 50 years ago photos were only taken by enthusiasts or professionals, your average Jo probably didn't own a camera let alone have any input on what method of archiving they should use.

But they employed those with the cameras, be they professionals or enthusiasts, to produce the images for them. We have photos here (or my mum has) that were taken by studios in Europe and/or Sydney.

Photographers were employed to record special events in our lives: weddings, christenings, bar mitzvahs, etc ... and this continues today.

We still buy prints from those pros to have a record of those special days, but today, Krystal-Kylie has her shoephone and can record her drunken escapades with Jolene. 50 years ago those same drunken escapes - in Georges Restaurant, or perhaps at the Trocadero in the city - would have been recorded by a photographer wandering from restaurant to restaurant. Again, prints would have been purchased. But will Krystal-Kylie have her shoephone images printed?

with with xmas coming up, i wonder how many give relo's photos ? i give my folks a nice framed photo of Lucas every year. i can only imagine the look on my old mans face if he unwrapped a present and it was a CD. i can see myself trying to explain the benefits to him..."but Dad, last year you got only ONE photo, this has TWO HUNDRED photos and you can save them on yo.....*****CRASH****........."

we interupt this transmission due to the CD being hurled thru the air directly at my head...

 btw: this reminds me of a raymond borune episode, (everybody loves raymond ??), where he tries to update his old mans vinyl collection to CD explaining the differences in sound quality and durability of CD's etc. very funny episode and completely relevant to this discusson...

I can only respond concisely (for a change) as my cold medication makes my brain not work good.

Slides: my parents, who are not photo enthusiasts, shot slide and negatives back in the 70s and 80s. Therefore the discussion about slides is relevant. By casting them as irrelevant, we are making assumptions about the general public which could just as easily be wrong. You can't have the ubiquitous slide night without slides.

Community: whilst I don't buy into the whole 'virtual network' stuff, if you have a photo album, you can share it with those in the physical presence of it. My grandmother will, I expect, never see the film shots I have taken of Alex as she is some 10,000 kms away, and I haven't had reprints done. She can, however, almost instantaneously, view the digital images we have taken. Either via email or logging onto Smugmug, both of which she has done or is capable of receiving.

Archival: having a box of prints (which turn blue or orange) and negs/slides sitting in the attic is little different to having a card or hard drive full of files. The means by which the information will degrade may be different, but degrade they will without proactive management.

Funerals: I have only been to one funeral in the last 10 or so years (this being a year ago) and they had a slide show of scanned/digital images running.

I love looking at old photographs and wondering about the history and the story behind them. I just don't think I could get that from seeing them on the screen.

Neither do I.

Yes, but how would you share that photograph with your grandmother in Chile? (I, of course, appreciate that it is unlikely your grandmother is in Chile, but it does apply to some of us )

I am, personally, very much in the pro-print camp, but I don't agree that, for the average person, there is much difference in a real, practical sense, between having the proverbial shoe box and the hard drive. It is likely that both will contain images that are viewed infrequently and will become lost.

We have recently moved to a place which has a granny flat under the house. I was excited as a solvent person at a Pickles car auction when I realised I could easily set up a dark room down there. I love the practical and romantic idea of printing some of my B&W 120 negs. I also realise that this could mean I don't see my family!

In the end, I believe a debate such as this is akin to a debate about cork vs other closures. There is a romanticism about cork which is lost with a screw cap. But there is also a hell of a lot more practicality with a screw cap.

Patrick,

Reschsmooth wrote:You can't have the ubiquitous slide night without slides.

Very good point. Did your parents look after their slides in a manner similar to what has been described earlier in this thread?

My grandmother will, I expect, never see the film shots I have taken of Alex as she is some 10,000 kms away, and I haven't had reprints done.

But you could. And they could be posted to her. Imagine her delight at receiving those prints in the mail.

What I think is interesting here is that you talking about your grandmother, who has, clearly, come to grips with using a computer. My mum has not. She lives just a hundred meters away, and wants prints.

gstark wrote:Patrick,

Reschsmooth wrote:You can't have the ubiquitous slide night without slides.

Very good point. Did your parents look after their slides in a manner similar to what has been described earlier in this thread?

No. They are kept in the carousels, without referencing. That said, I would imagine that these slides, which have already lasted (in what condition, I don't know) 20-30 years, will last longer than our CDs holding RAW files.

My grandmother will, I expect, never see the film shots I have taken of Alex as she is some 10,000 kms away, and I haven't had reprints done.

But you could. And they could be posted to her. Imagine her delight at receiving those prints in the mail.

What I think is interesting here is that you talking about your grandmother, who has, clearly, come to grips with using a computer. My mum has not. She lives just a hundred meters away, and wants prints.

[/quote]

Her coming to grips would be with a lot of assistance from her local grandchildren.

I would imagine that her delight would be great at seeing the images. I accept that she may enjoy receiving prints more than an email, but I do not know how to quantify it.

But, whilst relevant, it is inappropriate to solely focus on those for whom computing is a very foreign process.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you and I also agree with the comments of others - there is a very large middle ground where data and prints can co-exist for the benefit of photography. To misquote numerous sports journos ( ) "photography is the real winner".

Does it matter why we take photographs.

Does a photograph have more value because it is taken for one reason or another reason, does it have more value because it is taken by one person rather than a different individual, does it matter if it is taken with a mobile phone or a very expensive camera.

Think about painting or poetry or writing books or music.

We value those because of the joy they bring or the feelings they evoke. We did not care if the poem was written with a pencil, chiselled into stone, or written with an expensive word processor.

At the moment I'm listening to a piece of music, it is labelled Albinoni's adagio, except it was not written by Albinoni. It was written hundreds of years later by Remo Giazotto, and I have probably never heard another piece of music by him. But this make the music less enjoyable and less valuable. Absolutely not.

When we take a photograph, paint or draw or write a poem or a book we are seeking to capture something, a feeling, a memory or a time or a place. The value comes not with a photograph but the association that goes with it.

The association can be a public issue or it can be an intensely private concern. Sometimes we take a photograph specifically to share with someone else. (To sell for commercial reasons, to show to a grandparent). Some photographs are purely for personal reasons. (To remember an idea, to remember a place, to remember a person).

Some may get printed, some displayed on the Internet, some are turned into a screensaver. Some on reflection are never displayed to anyone else. Does this is a really make a difference.

How do you value a photograph. A photograph of a new baby is worth more than any masterpiece. The technical quality of the photograph is irrelevant.

What we should be worried about is if people stop taking photographs. Just as we would be worried if people stop writing and reading poetry or novels. It is the act of attempting to create or to capture the moment that is important. I would rather have 100 million people out there trying to write poetry or paint even if 99% of them are not successful at producing a masterpiece, than to have one master sitting in cave producing masterpieces. It is the participation in the process that encourages us to strive to get better next time, to share when we think we've got it right.

So I would not bemoan the state of photography. I rejoice that there are so many people involved in so many different ways. That is what will keep photography alive as a living art.

Philip

Philip,

sevencolours wrote:So I would not bemoan the state of photography. I rejoice that there are so many people involved in so many different ways. That is what will keep photography alive as a living art.

The point of my original post in this thread was that, in many cases - too many instances - I fear that the photograph, having been made, will never, ever move beyond that initial medium upon which it was made.

That makes it, IMHO, not really a photograph, but just a waste of time.

And that, to me, is a very sad situation.

I'm following this discussion with interest.

I have always enjoyed photography and with my trusty old EOS620 I accumulated a lot of photos (mainly slides) while I was travelling, some of which I am quite personally pleased with but which may not stand up to technical criticism nevertheless. I have had digital point-and-shoot cameras for many years, initially because of the advantage they gave me to be able to show a client how they looked (body position/posture) immediately after attempting a change. This progressed to displaying on the TV for a better view. I am almost positive that I haven't printed a single one of those - they did their job within a few seconds of the shots being taken and we moved on. The film camera was packed away sometime around then.

Once my first child came along, I started generating thousands of images, all pretty hopeless I guess. Most of these have never been printed but I would hate to lose any of them, so they have been diligently backed up on different media, in different physical locations, "just in case". For me, these are important for memories and the emotions they evoke, certainly not for any acclaim I would hope to receive from a good photographer's critique. Some of these weren't too bad and they were printed at 6x4, or 5x7 - I think it was a 1MP Kodak.

I soon realised that I wanted to take better shots and bought what I could afford, a Canon G5 as I couldn't justify the price of a DSLR in 2003. Many more average baby photos later, I realised that it was a higher spec, higher resolution tool which I was still pointing and shooting without too much thought. However those photos are still as important and as evocative to me. With a second child on the way, and enrolling in a basic digital photography night school class, I upgraded to a Canon 350D with twin lens kit. Still a lot of pointing and shooting, moving away from the green rectangle setting with a lot more Av photos, I was happier with the results. A higher proportion were printed, but still, not that many despite making a photo wall of random frame sizes that covers a whole wall in our house - did make some calendars for the rellies though, which turned out quite nicely.

So now I find myself again wanting more (from my photography as well as more toys of course). I've been gradually searching the net after the kids have gone to bed (time with them is still my main priority, and that means that they will be my main subjects of my photos for a while) - that's how I've ended up here. I've bought half a dozen photography books in the last few months, read half of them, and only taken a hundred-odd photos in that time, printed a few and put some on DVD for my mum. I think it's time for a change - so here I am, and I'll be joining a local photo club when they restart in 2009 so I won't have any more excuses.

So, the importance of photography? From my viewpoint, for my own purposes, it is changing all the time - certainly more important today, as I would never have expected to sit here and type this much on a forum (especially at work - lucky I'm my own boss!). Tomorrow, it may be moreso. Different times, different reasons, different moods - different answer.

Ask me again in a year or so, when I have a couple of hundred posts under my belt and (maybe!) posted a few pics which I will have taken to show somebody other than myself.

Cheers, Muzz

gstark wrote:

Generally speaking the photos are totally boring to all but the person who took them or who is in them.

Yep. I've already said exactly that.

But I tend to think that this is more true in the immediate "now", and perhaps over the next few years ... perhaps up to a generation on.

I would love to hear more female points of view on this too, btw. Lindy lost her mum just over two years ago, and I know how vital the images she has of her mum are to her and to her daughters.

This is a variable point - if one has hundreds of pics, then yes, but equally I have found showing maybe 80 pics max to family does go down quite well.......

I'm not even sure we had a family photo album. Interestingly, my dad did from his childhood (and he was born in 1909), so perhaps they did as a family. I think those albums are around somewhere, but as Greg mentions, there are lots of photos of family members with people we can't identify. And there are even fewer captions. My father died at the start of 1971 so we can't even find out who those people were.

My father died in 1958. My grandparents were victims of the Nazis in the war and I never had the pleasure of knowing them. Perhaps that is colouring my point of view here? The (very few) photos that my mum has are quite important to me.

I'd be similar - even people I met in the UK back in 87 when I was very young I'd have problems recognising & naming.... if I went through an album at Mum's with my wife.

with Jo and Jolene: will they move their images off their batphones and on to some other form of more permanent storage (as we would do) or will the image of them, drunk at last week's Christmas party eventually just be deleted to be replaced with the image of them, drunk, at the NYE inebriations along the harbour foreshores?

And do those pics have any real significance if they don't survive? That is the other issue...... My mother - now 67 - has embraced digital photography with her Canon Powershot A75, and leaves her computer running with a screensaver slideshowing her pics from time to time - the regions ranging from all parts of Aus, NZ, Canada + Alaska.... etc.

The pics make her happy -- isn't that the primary goal -- and the survival of the pics is really a bonus? Another picture of Banff, say, isn't going to end the world in another 200 years is it?

She also knows enough to backup her pics to optical media and give it to my sister to keep for her.

My family are not particularly close and don't even live close to each other.

My mum lives across the road. My sister lives two blocks away. I've spoken with my sister just once, so far this year. More frequently with my mum, but this lack of contact actually saddens me.

Seriously.

I do a bit better than this and I'm "overseas". I'm just back from 4 days in Brissy where I stayed with my Mother and saw my sister, niece & brother-in-law (#2) for the 2nd time this year -- there was about 4 weeks back in Mar/Apr & this quick 4 day trip in December. I'd speak to them on the phone probably once every 6-8 weeks on average too.... I aim for quality vs quantity.....

The other issue I'll throw in is how the memories keep....... my mother has a fair quantity of cinefilm shot by my late father -- from what I recall, it was very brittle and would break and need repair when she played it back in the 80's/early 90's - so I wonder now if it is saveable at all????

I was actually talking to her about digitisation of family slides & negative filmstrips..... my reasoning is that I disagree.... if one has good multiple drive/offsite policies I see no problem in keeping stuff that way so long as it gets moved from 8"floppy to 5.25" to 3.5" to CD to DVD to HDD et al.....

By no means do I ever intend to junk the slides in their timber cases.....

This Xmas I intend to spend some downtime in moving some remaining legacy data to HDD.....