Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Reason for being  (Read 3577 times)
Rajan Parrikar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 779



WWW
« on: February 28, 2010, 10:05:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote:
American children in 2010 have a bright, clear reason for being. They exist to furnish subjects for digital photographs that can be corrected, cropped, captioned, organized, categorized, albumized, broadcast, turned into screen savers and brandished on online social networks.

Framing Childhood
Logged

daws
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2010, 10:56:28 PM »
ReplyReply

And all along I thought it was cats.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2010, 02:20:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Parrikar
Quote:
American children in 2010 have a bright, clear reason for being. They exist to furnish subjects for digital photographs that can be corrected, cropped, captioned, organized, categorized, albumized, broadcast, turned into screen savers and brandished on online social networks.

Framing Childhood


Imagine the work load for historians of the future.

The truth and accuracy of history is often very contentious due to lack of firm evidence. The Gospels were written at least 30 years or more after the death of Christ. There's a great paucity of reliable information that has survived from the past, and the further back we try to reach, the greater the paucity.

Historians of the future will have no such paucity. They'll be overwhelmed with millions of terabytes of information, including video and sound recordings, and billions of digital still images   .
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2010, 04:53:37 AM »
ReplyReply

But will it still be readable and/or visible, Ray? Unless people use archival paper and print as much as they shoot and constantly upgrade the equipment...

Rob C
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2010, 05:03:58 AM »
ReplyReply

...tipical of degenerating and decadent societies. Inundating the world with stupid gadget and empty familly content while the rest of the world is starving...Pathetic!

Fred.

edit: sorry, I missunderstood the article. My post here makes no sense. I need to improve my english, definitely.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 09:19:49 AM by fredjeang » Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2010, 05:19:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Parrikar
Quote:
American children in 2010 have a bright, clear reason for being. They exist to furnish subjects for digital photographs that can be corrected, cropped, captioned, organized, categorized, albumized, broadcast, turned into screen savers and brandished on online social networks.
We had children (and cats) before (digital) photography... and some of us actually view pictures in analog (non-e) form!

What proportion of digital picture include children?

...and we do have children and cats ( and digital cameras) in most areas of the world.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2010, 05:26:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
...tipical of degenerating and decadent societies. Inundating the world with stupid gadget and empty familly content while the rest of the world is starving...Pathetic!

Fred.
One of the useful functions of photography is recording and broadcasting the predicament of the starving (and disaster victims) and bringing their plight to our attention, so that we can fund charities to assist them.
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2010, 05:41:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
One of the useful functions of photography is recording and broadcasting the predicament of the starving (and disaster victims) and bringing their plight to our attention, so that we can fund charities to assist them.
Yes, indeed. But then we are talking about serious stuff.
Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2010, 07:52:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
Yes, indeed. But then we are talking about serious stuff.
Sorry, moderator, serious comments not allowed it the coffee corner
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2010, 08:01:58 AM »
ReplyReply

I think it is more my english that fail.
No intention to moderate anything  

Fred
Logged
ckimmerle
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 442



WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2010, 08:24:29 AM »
ReplyReply

That article was pure drivel. No substance, no insight. I imagine she was under deadline and desperate for something to write about.

I have a scrapbook full of photos from when I was a child in the 60's, many of which were dutifully shared with family and friends. It was created by my mother from a huge box of photos kept in a closet- thousands of photos - that she had acquired throughout her life. None of them were archival (some are fading), none of them redundantly protected against loss, and very few included any pertinent information other than, perhaps, a date stamp from the photo lab. The older photos in her collection are in even worse shape, and almost none have any indication of who, what, where or why.

So, what exactly, other than the ability to share photos more quickly and easily, has changed?

Answer.....nothing.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 08:29:23 AM by ckimmerle » Logged

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust

Chuck Kimmerle
WWW.CHUCKKIMMERLE.COM
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6076



WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 01, 2010, 08:51:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Right on the money, Chuck. Beyond your grandparents, who, in a box of ancient family photographs, can you identify? By the fourth generation it just doesn't make much difference whether or not those photographs survive. The only exception I can remember is one of my granddads who posed for a formal portrait just after he got his law degree from the first law school class at University of Michigan. I scanned that one and made an archival print to give to my second son when he got his law degree from Stanford. That picture still hangs in an honored place in his office.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #12 on: March 01, 2010, 11:45:12 AM »
ReplyReply

I hate to say it, but I think the writer of the article was only doing it partly tongue-in-cheek; I think she touched quite accurately on several sensitive areas, sensitive only because they are being read on this forum where we tend to think of ourselves as photo-sophisticates; at least, if not, why spend so much time on mutual navel-gazing?

My own kids got to have mixed feelings about photography - on the one hand, they got bored beyond words standing in front of white paper rolls holding cards with 4, 4.5, 5.6, 8, 9.9  etc. on them as I did transparency film/lighting tests (the quick will realise I am long enough in the tooth to have lived life before good flash meters were available) if not quite so bored when they got the odd modelling job.

I have very few family pics and it now hurts me somewhat; not sure what I'd do with them, but the only scrapbook of family images lives with my daughter and I had to get her to scan a couple and e-mail the result when I wanted to have some self-portraits I did in the year dot with my first Exakta. How innocent I looked.

I suppose Sally Mann made something pretty good out of it, though.

Rob C
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6076



WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 01, 2010, 02:26:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
I had to get her to scan a couple and e-mail the result when I wanted to have some self-portraits I did in the year dot with my first Exakta. How innocent I looked.
Rob C

Rob, No kidding! let's see them. You need to prove your innocence.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #14 on: March 01, 2010, 04:19:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Rob, No kidding! let's see them. You need to prove your innocence.




Okay, then, but at your own risk!

P.S. How do you like the minimalist string neckstrap? Poverty, poverty!
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 04:22:28 PM by Rob C » Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6076



WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 01, 2010, 05:56:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, I'll have to admit that there's a lot of immaturity in those pictures, but innocence? I'm not so sure. I don't have any at that age with cameras in them -- just airplanes. Looks as if you were a reasonably good photographer though.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2010, 09:33:51 PM »
ReplyReply

How about a family shot from the 19th century?

Towards the end of my parents' life, I came across a print in an album which I'd never seen before. It was a group photo of my Great Grandparents, Great Uncles and Great Aunties, taken by a professional photographer (I presume) sometime in the 1890's before my father was born.

The only member of this group I ever recall meeting was the guy in the middle of the second row, who is my grandfather. Of course I knew him as a much older man.

I scanned this print about 10 years ago and recorded it to CD-ROM. I haven't got around to making another copy on DVD or Blu-ray or even an external hard drive, but I intend to eventually. You'll all be pleased to know that this 10 year-old CD-ROM has not suffered from bit rot, as have none of my other CD-ROMS of similar age, and is still perfectely readable.

Before my father died, I got him to tell me the names of these unknown family members. From top left to bottom right, they are:

(1) Great Aunt Margaret, rebellious and insouciant. She would have been told by the photographer to keep as still as possible for the long exposure, but is the only one of the group who moved. She was my father's favourite aunt.

(2) Great Uncle John, a blacksmith by trade.

(3) Joseph, my grandfather, and a carpenter by trade. (Now that's interesting. Wasn't there another Joseph in ancient history who was also a carpenter? Did my grandfather become a carpenter because he thought it suited his name?)

(4) David, a ship's engineer.

(5) Jessie (no details).

(6) Lizzie (no details)

(7) Robert, a journalist.

(Cool Elizabeth, my Great Grandmother, looking as cheerful as ever.

(9) David, my Great Grandfather, a butcher by trade and looking just as cheerful as his wife.

(10) Bella (no details).

Hope you find this interesting.

[attachment=20593:Great_gr..._parents.jpg]
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #17 on: March 02, 2010, 04:44:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
(1) Great Aunt Margaret, rebellious and insouciant. She would have been told by the photographer to keep as still as possible for the long exposure, but is the only one of the group who moved. She was my father's favourite aunt.

[attachment=20593:Great_gr..._parents.jpg]




Shame on you Ray! Great Aunt Margaret did not move; she suffered from corner distortion of the lens, as I am sure she would have told you!

No wonder she was the favourite aunt - we all secretly love the rebellious spirit, as your Dad realised.

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #18 on: March 02, 2010, 01:01:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Well, I'll have to admit that there's a lot of immaturity in those pictures, but innocence? I'm not so sure.





Good grief, Russ! You can tell all this from looking at two cameras?

;-)

Rob C
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6076



WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 02, 2010, 02:21:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
Good grief, Russ! You can tell all this from looking at two cameras?

;-)

Rob C

Absolutely. That's not innocence. THIS is innocence.

[attachment=20604:Me_and_T6.jpg]
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad