Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: BJL on February 05, 2014, 06:40:33 pm
-
I suspect that many people here will not like the sentiment of the article, but I suspect that argument is commercially sound:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/technology/personaltech/making-the-case-for-a-more-selfie-friendly-smartphone.html?rref=homepage&module=Ribbon&version=origin®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Home%20Page&pgtype=article
P. S. Title corrected: damn the auto-spelling-mangler and my inattention!
-
Selfless?
-
Selfless?
I'd be interested in seeing a selfless selfie.
-
Better phones for better selfies? That phone would make me look handsome and thin.
-
Better phones for better selfies? That phone would make me look handsome and thin.
Aha: that is what the curved screens are really for! The fun-house mirror camera.
Come to think of it, there must be Instagram filters for weight-loss.
-
I suspect that many people here will not like the sentiment of the article, but I suspect that argument is commercially sound:
Absolutely! Definitely commercially sound, excluding the broad picture of human behaviour and its unforseen consequences. I sure hope manufacturers don't encourage the narcissism of selfies. We should learn from history.
The hedonistic pleasures of eating are a good analogy. The food industry has done an admirable job of catering to that pleasure. As a consequence, we have an enormous number of obese people in the West. Not only do such overweight people eat enough surplus and unneeded food to feed all the starving millions in the world, the health consequences of such overeating must cost trillions of dollars per year, world-wide, in medical expenses which would be better diverted to the underprivileged.
The narcissist is the mental equivalent of an alcoholic. He is insatiable. He compulsively directs his whole behaviour, in fact his life, to obtaining these pleasurable titbits of attention. He embeds them in a coherent, completely biased, fantastic picture of himself. He uses them to regulate his labile sense of self-worth and self-esteem. He needs narcissistic supply to carry out basic mental (ego) functions. Without it he crumbles and becomes dysfunctional.
For God's sake, you manufacturers of mobile phones, do not cater to this narcissism.
-
The problem with a lot of articles by journalists is whilst they may be capable at writing, journalists are often no more informed than any other person about most topics.
For example....
"Selfies taken on most major smartphones are almost uniformly of poor quality. They’re unfocused, pixelated, dark, blown-out, backlit, grainy and worst of all, distorted (I swear, I have a normal size nose!)."
So does she expect phones to suddenly deny the laws of physics or to incorporate an arm lengthening app. As well as changing the lighting of the room, so it is not behind the person? Because why should the person taking the photo have to make any effort or even heaven forbid, think at all.
-
The problem with a lot of articles by journalists is whilst they may be capable at writing, journalists are often no more informed than any other person about most topics.
For example....
"Selfies taken on most major smartphones are almost uniformly of poor quality. They’re unfocused, pixelated, dark, blown-out, backlit, grainy and worst of all, distorted (I swear, I have a normal size nose!)."
So does she expect phones to suddenly deny the laws of physics or to incorporate an arm lengthening app. As well as changing the lighting of the room, so it is not behind the person? Because why should the person taking the photo have to make any effort or even heaven forbid, think at all.
Nicely put, jjj!
-
Something else I realised a while back. When I became familiar with any particular topic, too often the people writing in specialist magazines or on websites were no sadly more knowledgeable or experienced than myself a depressing amount of the time. And as for reviews, whether say a feature film review or a camera review, often all they tended to reveal was the reviewers personal tastes and biases and as a result they do not tell me [or many other people] anything useful.
There are thankfully a few exceptions [Michael for one] who write with a more informed mindset and can actually impart some useful information.
-
Something else I realised a while back. When I became familiar with any particular topic, too often the people writing in specialist magazines or on websites were no sadly more knowledgeable or experienced than myself a depressing amount of the time. And as for reviews, whether say a feature film review or a camera review, often all they tended to reveal was the reviewers personal tastes and biases and as a result they do not tell me [or many other people] anything useful.
There are thankfully a few exceptions [Michael for one] who write with a more informed mindset and can actually impart some useful information.
I now this is treading perilously close to the fire, but don't journalists fall into the same hole as some teachers: the talklng about it rather than doing it one?
;-)
Rob C
-
I'm glad you said 'some' teachers.
Teaching is a very under appreciated skill and just because you are good at something does not mean you can teach it. Seen plenty of experts try and teach and do an awful job.
I've taught in quite a few areas myself and seem to have a knack for it, but there's no way I would think I can go into school and motivate those who are there but are not interested to learn. A very different skill again. One of my Jiu Jitsu students was a school teacher and quite exceptional at dealing with the kids classes. I taught adult classes and only guest taught the kids on occasions and he was way better than me at kid wrangling.
But certainly many people teaching how to use Photoshop/Premiere/Final Cut etc are not good/creative enough to use them in the real world, but do know where every widget is. And many successful photographers don't know the basics of the software like Photoshop/Lightroom.
-
I'm glad you said 'some' teachers.
Teaching is a very under appreciated skill and just because you are good at something does not mean you can teach it. Seen plenty of experts try and teach and do an awful job.
I've taught in quite a few areas myself and seem to have a knack for it, but there's no way I would think I can go into school and motivate those who are there but are not interested to learn. A very different skill again. One of my Jiu Jitsu students was a school teacher and quite exceptional at dealing with the kids classes. I taught adult classes and only guest taught the kids on occasions and he was way better than me at kid wrangling.
But certainly many people teaching how to use Photoshop/Premiere/Final Cut etc are not good/creative enough to use them in the real world, but do know where every widget is. And many successful photographers don't know the basics of the software like Photoshop/Lightroom.
Indeed, I have two teachers in the family and realise some of the problems that they face, and it's not just the kids: parents with hopelessly misplaced ideas of their kid's abilities rank high on the frustration tables! Diplomacy skill should be a prerequisite for all teachers.
Regarding Photoshop skills and today's successful snappers, I can only say I'm not surprised. Time alone would prevent a busy snapper from doing all of that stuff well himself; he needs to be at the client interface and using the camera to make the money to keep the show on the road. Also, in the case of some people like me, who come from a vastly different generation with quite different motivations that made photography attractive as a way of life, I know that the coldly clinical world of digital output holds very little charm; the visceral buzz of that print coming out of the wetness, as if by magic, was always a buzz; it never left, but for certain it did attain a different level of importance/urgency when money began to ride on its back!
Rob C