4 ms·

I wonder if children being born over the last decade will come to despise taking photos, because from their first memory they have been constantly interrupted a

by floren 7y ago

I wonder if children being born over the last decade will come to despise taking photos, because from their first memory they have been constantly interrupted at play by mom or dad trying to get their attention for a picture. My niece's every trip to the playground is documented in photo and video; she looks down from the playset not at her mother's face but at the back of her mother's iPhone.

nkrisc 7y ago
I had the same thought. Sure, I take photos of my kid, but sometimes I might go weeks without taking a picture of him (Oh my, the horror!). Then people bug me that I haven't taken any recent photos of him for a while and I can't help but think, "yeah, because I was too busy having fun to take a picture." And if I do decide to take one, I usually try to snap it discretely when he's not looking so I'm not interrupting his play. I also show them to him later and he likes looking at them, or a video of him going down the slide. It's the same when I go on trips. I go on vacation then come back and realize I only took maybe three photos on the first day and that was it. I think people take photos when they're not having fun so they can look back later and pretend they were.
- ta999999171 7y ago
  Great comment. Real life is HD as fuck!
- floren 7y ago
  It's funny that the old point-and-shoot film cameras everyone used in the 80s and 90s were perhaps the best way to actually capture what's going on rather than turning a photo into a big production. You'd hold the camera in your right hand and prepare for the picture by cranking the film with your thumb. When you wanted the picture, you'd quickly raise it to your eye and take the shot. There was no waiting for focus, because they were all set to infinity focus. They used simple analog light sensors to set the exposure the instant you pointed the camera. With a phone, you might raise it to your face so FaceID will unlock it, then you look for and open the camera app, then you're using both hands to hold the phone out in front of you and wait while it focuses and figures out exposure; if you're using a cheaper phone, this could be several seconds. Then you take the picture and, again, if you're not using the freshest iPhone it might take 1-2 seconds between tapping the shutter button and actually being sure the picture has been taken. It's intrusive and slow. Photos from my childhood often feature me either looking at something else or having just turned my head to look at the camera because my mom called to me. Photos today often seem to have a more posed and unnatural feel to them, because it's difficult to take a good picture stealthily; "hang on, I'm going to take a picture" is the common refrain.
  - jfengel 7y ago
    I know that a good photographer can take a good photograph with anything, and a bad photographer myself won't be improved by better equipment. Still... I took exclusively dreadful photos with those cameras. Part of it was that film was a barrier to practice. Results took days to produce, and the sum cost of film and processing quickly became higher than the camera itself. So I'd use up a roll of film, send it off, get depressed at the results, and quit. I was "in the moment" at those events because a camera would not have made happy memories. With practice I might have eventually learned something about composition, but I don't have fond memories of those cameras. It's only now that I have a camera with me at all times, and a computer struggling to adjust my shots to some kind of artistic merit, that I have become the sort of person who takes photos at all.
    - floren 7y ago
      I'd say there was a difference between taking pictures so you had a visual memory of the time you visited Hoover Dam with Grandma, vs. taking pictures because you want an artistically meretricious result. I would say almost none of the photos in our family albums are worth sharing on account of composition, but the contents are valuable to me because they show my grandfather (dead 25 years), they show my dad at 25 standing in front of the horse trailer in which he briefly lived while herding sheep, they show me playing on the steps of a home I only vaguely remember from the LORAN towers I could see blinking from my bedroom window.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - nkrisc 7y ago
        In my experience, anyway, you're absolutely correct. The family photos from my childhood that I've enjoyed the most are almost all either blurry, out of a focus, or just too dark/light. It's not the quality of the photo that anyone cares about.
    - jerf 7y ago
      "I know that a good photographer can take a good photograph with anything, and a bad photographer myself won't be improved by better equipment." With high latency, a photographer may take a technically high-quality photograph of the moment half-a-second too late. Skill can't overcome latency. I've become half-decent at accounting for the latency... pushing the button to take a picture, wait quarter second, then call out to the kid in question to look at you. But it's definitely one of those places where the old analog ways have an advantage over all of our digital ways and their interminable deciseconds extending into seconds of endlessly getting ready... gotta load the home screen, gotta load the camera, ok, now, wait a second, gotta initialize the camera hardware... whoops, gotta swap out some of your apps... ok... NO WAIT NOT OK oh crap they pushed the button... uh... load the button push handler... uhhh.... ok, CLICK. Sigh.
scottmcf 7y ago
I've got a teenager. This is very, very not the case.
- agumonkey 7y ago
  do they make contest on who has the largest online pics collection ?
bluGill 7y ago
20 years ago before digital cameras were useful (they existed but where poor quality) all pictures were by film which was somewhat expensive if you took a lot of pictures. (figure $.75/picture) It made sense to take care to get each picture perfectly posed as if anything was wrong it cost money. Now when have digital cameras where the marginal cost of each photo is 0. People have adjusted to free photos by taking more. However they have forgotten that they should also adjust by not spending as much time to pose perfection and instead just get the moment.
- floren 7y ago
  As I just replied to a sibling comment, I'm not sure this is entirely true. If I look at old pictures my parents took on film, a lot of them are frivolous and unposed--and enjoyable, because they're not a row of people standing with picture-smiles on. The pictures were expensive, but the attitude to taking pictures was also different. You'll find out if the picture was good in a couple weeks; no sense taking another.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    Even when taking frivolous pictures more care was taken about when to take them. Most people didn't carry a camera with them like they do now, thus even then frivolous pictures of the past were more planned because somebody had to think ahead to break the camera. (Cell phone cameras have nothing on the lens of a SLR, but they are amazing within their limits) Of course every family did have the photobuf who always had a camera in front of their face even back then. Most people in the family didn't though.
Infernal 7y ago
My wife does this to our kids and it breaks my heart - I try to be very sneaky on the somewhat rare (once every few weeks?) occasions I want to take a couple pics or vids of something spontaneous my kids are doing. My wife will interrupt, tell them to do something again or otherwise put them on the spot and then point the phone at them. I almost cringe whenever things are going well because I know she’ll want to interrupt. She feels it is harmless and doesn’t like how I “hate pictures”. Sigh.
- samtimalsina 7y ago
  I can relate. I hate taking pictures that you have to "fabricate" or redo because it didn't come out perfect. Especially around kids because they might infer these pictures are important somehow.
Kaze404 7y ago
I'm from 1997 and that is precisely the case for me. It's bad enough that I have a hard time taking pictures even when I want to, because I internalized how annoying it is.
AlexandrB 7y ago
> I wonder if children being born over the last decade will come to despise taking photos... I hope so. I've recently noticed that I spend a lot of time at concerts trying to take photos. Photos I'll probably never look at again. Meanwhile, I'm not paying attention to the music or the people around me.
- Balanceinfinity 7y ago
  Obama said he was shocked by how many people he met as president, and all they wanted to do was take a picture - even though there's a professional White House photographer recording everything and the pictures are made available. Heck - you're with the president: be in the moment. https://www.today.com/news/barack-obama-explains-why-he-ll-no-longer-take-selfies-t118289 https://www.today.com/news/barack-obama-explains-why-he-ll-n...
  - agumonkey 7y ago
    we're knee deep in the metamoment

by floren 7y ago

nkrisc 7y ago

I had the same thought. Sure, I take photos of my kid, but sometimes I might go weeks without taking a picture of him (Oh my, the horror!). Then people bug me that I haven't taken any recent photos of him for a while and I can't help but think, "yeah, because I was too busy having fun to take a picture." And if I do decide to take one, I usually try to snap it discretely when he's not looking so I'm not interrupting his play. I also show them to him later and he likes looking at them, or a video of him going down the slide. It's the same when I go on trips. I go on vacation then come back and realize I only took maybe three photos on the first day and that was it. I think people take photos when they're not having fun so they can look back later and pretend they were.

ta999999171 7y ago
Great comment. Real life is HD as fuck!
floren 7y ago
It's funny that the old point-and-shoot film cameras everyone used in the 80s and 90s were perhaps the best way to actually capture what's going on rather than turning a photo into a big production. You'd hold the camera in your right hand and prepare for the picture by cranking the film with your thumb. When you wanted the picture, you'd quickly raise it to your eye and take the shot. There was no waiting for focus, because they were all set to infinity focus. They used simple analog light sensors to set the exposure the instant you pointed the camera. With a phone, you might raise it to your face so FaceID will unlock it, then you look for and open the camera app, then you're using both hands to hold the phone out in front of you and wait while it focuses and figures out exposure; if you're using a cheaper phone, this could be several seconds. Then you take the picture and, again, if you're not using the freshest iPhone it might take 1-2 seconds between tapping the shutter button and actually being sure the picture has been taken. It's intrusive and slow. Photos from my childhood often feature me either looking at something else or having just turned my head to look at the camera because my mom called to me. Photos today often seem to have a more posed and unnatural feel to them, because it's difficult to take a good picture stealthily; "hang on, I'm going to take a picture" is the common refrain.
- jfengel 7y ago
  I know that a good photographer can take a good photograph with anything, and a bad photographer myself won't be improved by better equipment. Still... I took exclusively dreadful photos with those cameras. Part of it was that film was a barrier to practice. Results took days to produce, and the sum cost of film and processing quickly became higher than the camera itself. So I'd use up a roll of film, send it off, get depressed at the results, and quit. I was "in the moment" at those events because a camera would not have made happy memories. With practice I might have eventually learned something about composition, but I don't have fond memories of those cameras. It's only now that I have a camera with me at all times, and a computer struggling to adjust my shots to some kind of artistic merit, that I have become the sort of person who takes photos at all.
  - floren 7y ago
    I'd say there was a difference between taking pictures so you had a visual memory of the time you visited Hoover Dam with Grandma, vs. taking pictures because you want an artistically meretricious result. I would say almost none of the photos in our family albums are worth sharing on account of composition, but the contents are valuable to me because they show my grandfather (dead 25 years), they show my dad at 25 standing in front of the horse trailer in which he briefly lived while herding sheep, they show me playing on the steps of a home I only vaguely remember from the LORAN towers I could see blinking from my bedroom window.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - nkrisc 7y ago
      In my experience, anyway, you're absolutely correct. The family photos from my childhood that I've enjoyed the most are almost all either blurry, out of a focus, or just too dark/light. It's not the quality of the photo that anyone cares about.
  - jerf 7y ago
    "I know that a good photographer can take a good photograph with anything, and a bad photographer myself won't be improved by better equipment." With high latency, a photographer may take a technically high-quality photograph of the moment half-a-second too late. Skill can't overcome latency. I've become half-decent at accounting for the latency... pushing the button to take a picture, wait quarter second, then call out to the kid in question to look at you. But it's definitely one of those places where the old analog ways have an advantage over all of our digital ways and their interminable deciseconds extending into seconds of endlessly getting ready... gotta load the home screen, gotta load the camera, ok, now, wait a second, gotta initialize the camera hardware... whoops, gotta swap out some of your apps... ok... NO WAIT NOT OK oh crap they pushed the button... uh... load the button push handler... uhhh.... ok, CLICK. Sigh.

scottmcf 7y ago

I've got a teenager. This is very, very not the case.

agumonkey 7y ago
do they make contest on who has the largest online pics collection ?

bluGill 7y ago

20 years ago before digital cameras were useful (they existed but where poor quality) all pictures were by film which was somewhat expensive if you took a lot of pictures. (figure $.75/picture) It made sense to take care to get each picture perfectly posed as if anything was wrong it cost money. Now when have digital cameras where the marginal cost of each photo is 0. People have adjusted to free photos by taking more. However they have forgotten that they should also adjust by not spending as much time to pose perfection and instead just get the moment.

floren 7y ago
As I just replied to a sibling comment, I'm not sure this is entirely true. If I look at old pictures my parents took on film, a lot of them are frivolous and unposed--and enjoyable, because they're not a row of people standing with picture-smiles on. The pictures were expensive, but the attitude to taking pictures was also different. You'll find out if the picture was good in a couple weeks; no sense taking another.
- bluGill 7y ago
  Even when taking frivolous pictures more care was taken about when to take them. Most people didn't carry a camera with them like they do now, thus even then frivolous pictures of the past were more planned because somebody had to think ahead to break the camera. (Cell phone cameras have nothing on the lens of a SLR, but they are amazing within their limits) Of course every family did have the photobuf who always had a camera in front of their face even back then. Most people in the family didn't though.

Infernal 7y ago

My wife does this to our kids and it breaks my heart - I try to be very sneaky on the somewhat rare (once every few weeks?) occasions I want to take a couple pics or vids of something spontaneous my kids are doing. My wife will interrupt, tell them to do something again or otherwise put them on the spot and then point the phone at them. I almost cringe whenever things are going well because I know she’ll want to interrupt. She feels it is harmless and doesn’t like how I “hate pictures”. Sigh.

samtimalsina 7y ago
I can relate. I hate taking pictures that you have to "fabricate" or redo because it didn't come out perfect. Especially around kids because they might infer these pictures are important somehow.

Kaze404 7y ago

I'm from 1997 and that is precisely the case for me. It's bad enough that I have a hard time taking pictures even when I want to, because I internalized how annoying it is.

AlexandrB 7y ago

> I wonder if children being born over the last decade will come to despise taking photos... I hope so. I've recently noticed that I spend a lot of time at concerts trying to take photos. Photos I'll probably never look at again. Meanwhile, I'm not paying attention to the music or the people around me.

Balanceinfinity 7y ago
Obama said he was shocked by how many people he met as president, and all they wanted to do was take a picture - even though there's a professional White House photographer recording everything and the pictures are made available. Heck - you're with the president: be in the moment. https://www.today.com/news/barack-obama-explains-why-he-ll-no-longer-take-selfies-t118289 https://www.today.com/news/barack-obama-explains-why-he-ll-n...
- agumonkey 7y ago
  we're knee deep in the metamoment