Please explain the pointless photography

[Perd Hapley]

I get to spend every Monday evening in a "wired classroom," meaning we all sit behind lap-tops.  The girl in front of me just scrolls through Facebook the whole three hours.  This is fine, I guess, on the off chance that she already knows Excel, databases, etc. 

But why do her friends want to photograph every nanosecond of their free time?  Why twenty photos of them doing nothing in a non-descript hotel room?  Why do they go to clubs, just to stand close together and smile? 

I'm glad I started shaving before phones had cameras on them.  That was a close one.

[mtnbkr]

But why do her friends want to photograph every nanosecond of their free time?  Why twenty photos of them doing nothing in a non-descript hotel room?  Why do they go to clubs, just to stand close together and smile? 

Digital cameras in every electronic device you buy and a pervasive need to use them are why you see such pictures.

Chris

[Gewehr98]

I sometimes think that's why professional photography has fallen so much by the wayside.

So many more "lucky" snapshots out there with cellphone cameras, etc. 

[Brad Johnson]

But why do her friends want to photograph every nanosecond of their free time?

Doood, check it out! This is my hand clicking the mouse to post this...!




Brad

[Jocassee]

I get to spend every Monday evening in a "wired classroom," meaning we all sit behind lap-tops.  The girl in front of me just scrolls through Facebook the whole three hours.  This is fine, I guess, on the off chance that she already knows Excel, databases, etc. 

But why do her friends want to photograph every nanosecond of their free time?  Why twenty photos of them doing nothing in a non-descript hotel room?  Why do they go to clubs, just to stand close together and smile? 

I'm glad I started shaving before phones had cameras on them.  That was a close one.

Being a charter member of the Me Generation, I've wondered this myself...still a mystery. You will notice that a lot of times its women taking the pictures. Just one of those things, I guess...

[Perd Hapley]

Doood, check it out! This is my hand clicking the mouse to post this...!




Brad

That's awesome, dude.  I think I have a mouse just like that.  Logitech? 

[Brad Johnson]

That's awesome, dude.  I think I have a mouse just like that.  Logitech? 

Nah. Computer.

Brad

Brad

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

Doood, check it out! This is my hand clicking the mouse to post this...!




Brad

Dude, defy the man! Have a mouse and keyboard that don't match! Fight the power!

[Balog]

Brad has officially won this thread, twice. I need to go buy a hat, so I can tip it to him.

[MechAg94]

Brad has officially won this thread, twice. I need to go buy a hat, so I can tip it to him.

Just make sure you post a picture of it.  :)

[CNYCacher]

I sometimes think that's why professional photography has fallen so much by the wayside.

So many more "lucky" snapshots out there with cellphone cameras, etc. 

Yup, take enough and you wind up with something good.

[zahc]

It's because digital imaging is free, or in other words, worthless. That which is obtained cheaply is esteemed lightly. It's human nature.

Even that doesn't explain why my sisters sends me emails with 8 different pictures of her son sitting in the same height chair at the same time. Really, just one picture of her son sitting in a given the height chair at a given time would suffice. I think people like my sister only use still imaging because there are barriers to using video. Otherwise she would just use video.

I really feel like digital still photography in any form will be obsolete soon anyway. In ten years, even the best DSLRs will be quaint anachronisms when Red-camera-like prosumer video hits. All still images will be subconsciously understood as "video stills" to my future children. Pro photographers at my church tell me they shoot several thousands of shots at a wedding. I can't even fathom that. With shooting rates like that, you have to figure the only reason they aren't just shooting video is because the quality/price factor isn't right yet. Yet.

You can already see the big camera companies struggling to milk their already insanely cheap and highly performing cameras with creative marketing, attempting to differentiate them from the earlier models. It's only industry brakes that are preventing headlong deflation into high-quality video.

[Balog]

I think a better question is why fisty is reading this girls FB over her shoulder instead of doing his work.

[mellestad]

Digital cameras in every electronic device you buy and a pervasive need to use them are why you see such pictures.

Chris

I agree, it is a generational thing.  They do it because they can, just a way to pass time.

[mtnbkr]

It's because digital imaging is free, or in other words, worthless. That which is obtained cheaply is esteemed lightly. It's human nature.

I believe the same thing was said about Kodak's early rollfilm cameras and service when it first appeared decades ago.

I agree, it is a generational thing.  They do it because they can, just a way to pass time.

I'm guilty of the same thing, but I don't post or even keep all of my results.  If time allows, I'll shoot the same scene several times with changes in flash bounce, aperture, shutter speed, etc (might even try graduated filters).  It's really no different than the auto bracketing feature many cameras (including film, zahc) are equipped with.

Chris

[red headed stranger]

Pro photographers at my church tell me they shoot several thousands of shots at a wedding. I can't even fathom that. With shooting rates like that, you have to figure the only reason they aren't just shooting video is because the quality/price factor isn't right yet. Yet.

A major reason that Photographers shoot so much at events is so that they can get the few good shots that come out of a once in a lifetime event. They have no control over people who inadvertently make a funny expresseion or blink.  Additionally, you have a better chance at catching a less attractive person's "good side."   They may shoot thousands, but they will still often only give a couple hundred tops to the bride/groom to choose from.  Taking tons of exposures at events like weddings is cheap insurance.  

[jackdanson]

They do that so I can stalk...errr nevermind.

[zahc]

A major reason that Photographers shoot so much at events is so that they can get the few good shots that come out of a once in a lifetime event. They have no control over people who inadvertently make a funny expresseion or blink.  Additionally, you have a better chance at catching a less attractive person's "good side."... Taking tons of exposures at events like weddings is cheap insurance. 

The logical conclusion, and ultimate insurance, would be to shoot video the whole time and forget still photography. If you had a camera where every frame was as good as a DSLR (the Red cameras are basically that), then why not just capture the whole thing on video, and grab whatever frames you want later? Such is the future imo.

[mtnbkr]

The logical conclusion, and ultimate insurance, would be to shoot video the whole time and forget still photography. If you had a camera where every frame was as good as a DSLR (the Red cameras are basically that), then why not just capture the whole thing on video, and grab whatever frames you want later? Such is the future imo.

I haven't looked into the Red Cameras, but unless they are MUCH more sensitive to light than still cameras, the issue will be lighting.  Even in the middle of the day, there isn't enough light in many churches to shoot without a flash (you can, but you lose shadow detail).  If the Red Cameras aren't much more light sensitive, you'll have to have add more light constantly (ie floods vs strobes for each shot). 

Chris

[Harold Tuttle]

I did one of the first video to still frame photoedits for Natty Geo for the Tornado probe story

6 cameras shooting 30fps for an encounter with a tornado of ~10 minutes
1800 pictures a minute X 6 X 10
editing 108,000 images was FUN!!eleven!!

crank it up to RED one 2k at 120fps and really split the photoeditors grey hairs

Several MM gurus are forecasting the media gatherer of the future shooting only Landscape video in the future

I prefer to hire snipers not saw gunners for editorial work

[Perd Hapley]

It's because digital imaging is free, or in other words, worthless. That which is obtained cheaply is esteemed lightly. It's human nature.

But it's not esteemed lightly.  I esteem cell phone cameras lightly, as in I can take or leave them.  I downgraded to a no-camera phone some time ago, and have never missed it. 

They obviously esteem them enough to use them constantly and post them on Facebook.  That's the part I don't get. 

I think a better question is why fisty is reading this girls FB over her shoulder instead of doing his work.

She's right in front of me, and her friends are better looking than my instructor or his spreadsheets. 

[mellestad]

I think digital photography is a great net benefit though...the barrier for entry is so much lower than it used to be.  Now all you need is a camera and time to kill on Photoshop and you can be a pro.  The business now is about artistry and talent, and less about the mechanics.

My wife does weddings and senior pictures on a semi-pro level, and the thing that amazes me is how much time it takes now.  She will blast through 600 pictures at a wedding, but then she is stuck having to edit all of those after the event.

Plus, if everyone has cell-cameras maybe we will finally catch ET and Sasquatch!

[brimic]

Digital photography- hmmf.

Out of every 100 or so pictures my wife take, maybe 1 is good.

Weird thing:
My 6 year old son probably takes 1 good picture out of every 25- his batting average is way higher than his mom's.

[mtnbkr]

Out of every 100 or so pictures my wife take, maybe 1 is good.

That's not the camera or medium's fault.

Chris

[coppertales]

I bet that hand has a hairy palm......chris3