Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Rajan Parrikar on February 28, 2010, 11:05:12 pm
-
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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/magazine/28FOB-medium-t.html?ref=magazine)
-
And all along I thought it was cats.
-
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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/magazine/28FOB-medium-t.html?ref=magazine)
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 .
-
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
-
...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.
-
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.
-
...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.
-
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.
-
Yes, indeed. But then we are talking about serious stuff.
Sorry, moderator, serious comments not allowed it the coffee corner
-
I think it is more my english that fail.
No intention to moderate anything
Fred
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
(8) 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]
-
(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
-
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
-
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]
-
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
Rob,
It's unlikely that corner distortion was so sudden and obvious in just one corner of the frame, even in 19th century lenses, so there's little doubt that she moved at the precise time the shutter was released. Nor is it likely that Great Aunt Margaret would have known about such things as corner distortion.
However, if she had, and if I'd been alive at the time and she'd offered such an excuse, being the perfect gentleman that I am, I would not have argued with her .
I'm reminded of another snapshot of Great Aunt Margaret that my father took as a teenager (during the following century) with his first 3 1/2 x 2 1/2 'plate' camera. He inadvertently misframed her and cut off the top of her head. She was not only rebellious, but vain. She frequently poked fun at my father for that misdemeanor and he never, ever again chopped of the hands, feet or heads of any subject in subsequent photos, thus depriving himself of the creative freedom of modern art.
-
Absolutely. That's not innocence. THIS is innocence.
[attachment=20604:Me_and_T6.jpg]
Or just a quick route to a short back'n'sides?
Rob C
-
I'm reminded of another snapshot of Great Aunt Margaret that my father took as a teenager (during the following century) with his first 3 1/2 x 2 1/2 'plate' camera. He inadvertently misframed her and cut off the top of her head. She was not only rebellious, but vain. She frequently poked fun at my father for that misdemeanor and he never, ever again chopped of the hands, feet or heads of any subject in subsequent photos, thus depriving himself of the creative freedom of modern art.
Why does he remind me somehow of Henry VIII?
Rob C
-
Why does he remind me somehow of Henry VIII?
Rob C
Rob,
I agree it does sound a bit bloody the way I described it. However, great Aunt Margaret was a hospital matron and would have been very familiar with the unpleasant sight of truncated limbs. Any suggestion in a photo that she had been given an extreme lobotomy would not have been appreciated .
-
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.
Are you saying that he isn't now?
-
Okay, then, but at your own risk!
P.S. How do you like the minimalist string neckstrap? Poverty, poverty!
Looks like a young Rikki Fulton. For the benefit of the American audience Rikki was a famous Scottish comedian, now sadly departed.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&id=20592 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=20592)
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http...ved=0CCUQ9QEwBw (http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nndb.com/people/241/000030151/rikki-fulton.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nndb.com/people/241/000030151/&h=233&w=180&sz=14&tbnid=JV4VRnfqGURftM:&tbnh=109&tbnw=84&prev=/images%3Fq%3Drikki%2Bfulton&hl=en&usg=__Eq7eR2X9czXt8UGgc-5Ryktror4=&ei=RTCSS4a2DZP20gSv2NDhDA&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=8&ct=image&ved=0CCUQ9QEwBw)
Rob have you come back to life and now living in Mallorca?
-
Looks like a young Rikki Fulton. For the benefit of the American audience Rikki was a famous Scottish comedian, now sadly departed.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&id=20592 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=20592)
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http...ved=0CCUQ9QEwBw (http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nndb.com/people/241/000030151/rikki-fulton.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nndb.com/people/241/000030151/&h=233&w=180&sz=14&tbnid=JV4VRnfqGURftM:&tbnh=109&tbnw=84&prev=/images%3Fq%3Drikki%2Bfulton&hl=en&usg=__Eq7eR2X9czXt8UGgc-5Ryktror4=&ei=RTCSS4a2DZP20gSv2NDhDA&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=8&ct=image&ved=0CCUQ9QEwBw)
Rob have you come back to life and now living in Mallorca?
No, I don't think I died again recently, but the next time I'm gone, if I meet up with my favourite person again, we won't be comin' back no' mo'.
Mr Fulton! And I had fond ideas of being the Scottish James Dean, Frankie Avalon, Dean Martin and even, on a wild day, Gregory Peck! Perhaps the latter because I had a thing for Ava Gardener at the time, all mixed up with The Snows of Kilimanjaro. Well, once BB came on the scene, Ava had had it.
Makes me think about how those stars have gone, been replaced by zeros; where the Avas, the Ritas, the Susans, the Yvonnes, the Janes, the Marilyns, the hell, it just goes on and on. What a short sell today's lot is; nothing for anyone beyond the rabid teenager. It's a croc.
You know, we write reams of stuff about photography, why we do it, how we do it, but we never seem to get our heads around the idea that just about all the visual thinking we do has been more movie influenced than by anything we ever saw in print or on the wall.
Rob C
-
Absolutely. That's not innocence. THIS is innocence.
[attachment=20604:Me_and_T6.jpg]
Not to mention a degree of trust that nobody will press the start button while you're not looking.
Jeremy