5 ms·

> At first I thought, "bummer," and although I would love to have pics from that night Honestly, when I hear this, I think, "Why?" You want block the views of

> At first I thought, "bummer," and although I would love to have pics from that night Honestly, when I hear this, I think, "Why?" You want block the views of the people behind you and watch Prince on a 3x5in screen when he's physically right in front of you just so you have some grainy, poorly-lit photos of your own instead of looking at the professional photos of Prince that are available online? It harms the experience of other fans. It harms your own experience. It harms the performer's bottom line. There's literally no upside to this. Practice some immediacy.

brandonmenc 11y ago
I usually only take one or two photos when I'm at a concert, specifically to put on Instagram to show my friends, "hey I'm at a Prince concert right now!" But the person just taking a video of the entire show? Agree, lame. I do think most people place a higher value on photos they took themselves - that much is obvious.
- iamsohungry 11y ago
  > I do think most people place a higher value on photos they took themselves - that much is obvious. That's true, but it seems absurd to me to place a higher value on a photo than the experience itself.
  - brandonmenc 11y ago
    People don't place a higher value on the photo than the experience. They would like to have the photo in addition to the experience, typically so that they can remember it. Sure, you can look at a professional photograph of Times Square, but it's probably not going to help you remember the time when you were there. And you can't point to it and later and say, "hey grandkids, try to imagine me standing here but really young!" It's bizarre to me that you don't understand this. It's also strange that you think spending time taking a photo would cause you to somehow "miss" the experience - which, I guess would be true if the experience were a one-time only event that lasted a few seconds - but spending five minutes snapping a few photos at a two hour concert is not going to "ruin" anything.
    - iamsohungry 11y ago
      > They would like to have the photo in addition to the experience You don't get to have both. You have to take time out of the experience to take a picture of it. > typically so that they can remember it. This reason makes sense if the person has some form of alzheimer's, sure. If you want something to remind you of it: have T-shirts I bought at every concert I've ever been to, which have the benefit of supporting the band and not taking time from the show and the experiences of the people behind me. They're also something I'll actually look at on a regular basis, because there are few enough of them that I can realistically look through them all, and most of them are still in good enough condition that I wear them occasionally. I've recently switched to buying records at the concerts instead, which has an even more direct connection to the experience. > spending five minutes snapping a few photos at a two hour concert is not going to "ruin" anything. Except those five minutes.
      - Dylan16807 11y ago
        Oh, you're saying people place a higher value on photos than the 1% of the experience they trade to make them? Yeah, that makes total sense. They still have the other 99%. I don't see why you would call that absurd.
        iamsohungry 11y ago
        Because when 100 people in front of you do it for 1% of the experience, it's 100% of your experience.
        Dylan16807 11y ago
        Only a couple people should be directly in front of you enough to cause a problem.
      - brandonmenc 11y ago
        How is buying a shirt or a record that thousands of other people own a "more direct connection" than a photo from my point of view or actually of me at the event? It's not. You're just arguing to argue. Unless you mean that it more directly supports the band, to which I say, why don't you just throw dollar bills onstage. > This reason makes sense if the person has some form of alzheimer's, sure. "Hey, I would've taken photos of my wedding, but I don't expect to get the Alzheimer's, so screw it." Whatever.
nkozyra 11y ago
Probably for the same reason people take snapshots on vacation despite not being professional photographers with thousand dollar lenses. It's a direct connection to the place and the event, a memento. A professional photograph depersonalizes it.
- iamsohungry 11y ago
  > It's a direct connection to the place and the event, a momentum. It's absolutely not direct connection. You're looking at the phone which is looking at the thing, not looking at the thing. It's more direct than a professional photograph, but it's less direct than looking at the thing. > A professional photograph depersonalizes it. Looking at it through a phone depersonalizes it.
  - nkozyra 11y ago
    Sure, but it's just a few seconds to preserve the memory of precisely where you were and what you saw. There's really no substitute for that and the cost to the experience is minimal.
    - iamsohungry 11y ago
      When all 50 people in front of you do it, the cost to the experience is pretty big.
    - icanhackit 11y ago
      to preserve the memory And to elevate oneself socially based on select signalling of goods and services consumed, places visited and activities performed. The photos will happily sit on a device, external storage or the printed page for occasional review but let's be honest here: it has less worth unless others see it. It's not the memory-trigger aspect that's so important but the feeling people get from knowing others are admiring what they're doing. The act is mostly for signalling. Some people forget the era where you typically didn't have a camera everywhere you went, and when you did have a camera you were limited by the amount of film you had. I remember that time and have plenty of vivid memories from it thanks to carrying the best camera I've ever owned: my eyes. the cost to the experience is minimal For the people capturing the moment perhaps. In Versailles I was whacked in the head with a selfie stick by a pirouetting halfwit. People fumbling with their phones and selfie sticks aren't considerate of the people around them.
Dylan16807 11y ago
I don't mind if the person in front of me blocks my view for less than a minute out of the entire show taking photos.
perucoder 11y ago
I agree, its totally out of control. Kind of ridiculous when you go to a concert and the majority of people are watching the show on the screen of their phones rather than directly

brandonmenc 11y ago

I usually only take one or two photos when I'm at a concert, specifically to put on Instagram to show my friends, "hey I'm at a Prince concert right now!" But the person just taking a video of the entire show? Agree, lame. I do think most people place a higher value on photos they took themselves - that much is obvious.

iamsohungry 11y ago
> I do think most people place a higher value on photos they took themselves - that much is obvious. That's true, but it seems absurd to me to place a higher value on a photo than the experience itself.
- brandonmenc 11y ago
  People don't place a higher value on the photo than the experience. They would like to have the photo in addition to the experience, typically so that they can remember it. Sure, you can look at a professional photograph of Times Square, but it's probably not going to help you remember the time when you were there. And you can't point to it and later and say, "hey grandkids, try to imagine me standing here but really young!" It's bizarre to me that you don't understand this. It's also strange that you think spending time taking a photo would cause you to somehow "miss" the experience - which, I guess would be true if the experience were a one-time only event that lasted a few seconds - but spending five minutes snapping a few photos at a two hour concert is not going to "ruin" anything.
  - iamsohungry 11y ago
    > They would like to have the photo in addition to the experience You don't get to have both. You have to take time out of the experience to take a picture of it. > typically so that they can remember it. This reason makes sense if the person has some form of alzheimer's, sure. If you want something to remind you of it: have T-shirts I bought at every concert I've ever been to, which have the benefit of supporting the band and not taking time from the show and the experiences of the people behind me. They're also something I'll actually look at on a regular basis, because there are few enough of them that I can realistically look through them all, and most of them are still in good enough condition that I wear them occasionally. I've recently switched to buying records at the concerts instead, which has an even more direct connection to the experience. > spending five minutes snapping a few photos at a two hour concert is not going to "ruin" anything. Except those five minutes.
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      Oh, you're saying people place a higher value on photos than the 1% of the experience they trade to make them? Yeah, that makes total sense. They still have the other 99%. I don't see why you would call that absurd.
      - iamsohungry 11y ago
        Because when 100 people in front of you do it for 1% of the experience, it's 100% of your experience.
        Dylan16807 11y ago
        Only a couple people should be directly in front of you enough to cause a problem.
    - brandonmenc 11y ago
      How is buying a shirt or a record that thousands of other people own a "more direct connection" than a photo from my point of view or actually of me at the event? It's not. You're just arguing to argue. Unless you mean that it more directly supports the band, to which I say, why don't you just throw dollar bills onstage. > This reason makes sense if the person has some form of alzheimer's, sure. "Hey, I would've taken photos of my wedding, but I don't expect to get the Alzheimer's, so screw it." Whatever.

nkozyra 11y ago

Probably for the same reason people take snapshots on vacation despite not being professional photographers with thousand dollar lenses. It's a direct connection to the place and the event, a memento. A professional photograph depersonalizes it.

iamsohungry 11y ago
> It's a direct connection to the place and the event, a momentum. It's absolutely not direct connection. You're looking at the phone which is looking at the thing, not looking at the thing. It's more direct than a professional photograph, but it's less direct than looking at the thing. > A professional photograph depersonalizes it. Looking at it through a phone depersonalizes it.
- nkozyra 11y ago
  Sure, but it's just a few seconds to preserve the memory of precisely where you were and what you saw. There's really no substitute for that and the cost to the experience is minimal.
  - iamsohungry 11y ago
    When all 50 people in front of you do it, the cost to the experience is pretty big.
  - icanhackit 11y ago
    to preserve the memory And to elevate oneself socially based on select signalling of goods and services consumed, places visited and activities performed. The photos will happily sit on a device, external storage or the printed page for occasional review but let's be honest here: it has less worth unless others see it. It's not the memory-trigger aspect that's so important but the feeling people get from knowing others are admiring what they're doing. The act is mostly for signalling. Some people forget the era where you typically didn't have a camera everywhere you went, and when you did have a camera you were limited by the amount of film you had. I remember that time and have plenty of vivid memories from it thanks to carrying the best camera I've ever owned: my eyes. the cost to the experience is minimal For the people capturing the moment perhaps. In Versailles I was whacked in the head with a selfie stick by a pirouetting halfwit. People fumbling with their phones and selfie sticks aren't considerate of the people around them.

Dylan16807 11y ago

I don't mind if the person in front of me blocks my view for less than a minute out of the entire show taking photos.

perucoder 11y ago

I agree, its totally out of control. Kind of ridiculous when you go to a concert and the majority of people are watching the show on the screen of their phones rather than directly