whats going to happen to those people who only shoot with phones or never print pics

[Steve5D]

Honestly, it's not that hard to decode the question being asked here. If you insist on correct grammar and clearly written essays for everything on the Internets, well, I wish you luck with that.

If you don't have an answer, it's okay to admit that.

He asked "What will happen to them?"

Why should we think anything will?

As for "correct grammar" and things which are "clearly written", well, is it really so much to hope for?

 

[amolitor]

Uploaded pictures don't last forever in any practical sense.

Yes, in theory google replicates everything 5-fold etc etc. In order for pictures stored with google to last N years, in any practical sense, you need at least 3 things:

- google has to not botch it and lose them
- google has to remain in the business of retaining them for you
- you need to be willing and able to find them

The first seems likely. The second is iffy. Yes, yes, google and facebook seem to be eternal, now, but they're not. They're both businesses with very very very serious problems with their long term business models, and there's a real possibility that they'll be radically different companies in a decade (or entirely gone). The last is the biggest one, though. All these guys are using, or trying to force you to use, a most recent first model.

It is in their interest to force you to display pictures most recent first, and for everyone to access them most recent first. New stuff has to dominate, in order to keep the eyeballs on the screen, to keep the ads paying the bills. Making it easy to access pictures from last week, or last year, or 10 years ago, is emphatically not a useful thing for google, facebook, flickr, or any other online service to do.

So, in real, practical, terms pictures uploaded and shared are more ephemeral than you might imagine. The useful lifespan is really measured in days or weeks.

This is a complicated issue, off the cuff analyses are easy, common, and completely wrong.

 

[amolitor]

Honestly, it's not that hard to decode the question being asked here. If you insist on correct grammar and clearly written essays for everything on the Internets, well, I wish you luck with that.

If you don't have an answer, it's okay to admit that.

But I do. I know perfectly well what he's asking. I suspect you do as well, but if you don't I'm not going to bother explaining it to you.

 

[robbins.photo]

Back in the olden days people used to show others images taken with their cameras in slide shows.
Sit around in the living room and project.

Yes, it was called "Living Hell".

 

[robbins.photo]

If you don't have an answer, it's okay to admit that.

He asked "What will happen to them?"

Why should we think anything will?

Well, it's possible some rogue professional photographer with some anger management issues might beat them to death with their own shoes. It has been known to happen after all.. rotfl

 

[Kolia]

Uploaded pictures don't last forever in any practical sense.

Yes, in theory google replicates everything 5-fold etc etc. In order for pictures stored with google to last N years, in any practical sense, you need at least 3 things:

- google has to not botch it and lose them
- google has to remain in the business of retaining them for you
- you need to be willing and able to find them

The first seems likely. The second is iffy. Yes, yes, google and facebook seem to be eternal, now, but they're not. They're both businesses with very very very serious problems with their long term business models, and there's a real possibility that they'll be radically different companies in a decade (or entirely gone). The last is the biggest one, though. All these guys are using, or trying to force you to use, a most recent first model.

It is in their interest to force you to display pictures most recent first, and for everyone to access them most recent first. New stuff has to dominate, in order to keep the eyeballs on the screen, to keep the ads paying the bills. Making it easy to access pictures from last week, or last year, or 10 years ago, is emphatically not a useful thing for google, facebook, flickr, or any other online service to do.

So, in real, practical, terms pictures uploaded and shared are more ephemeral than you might imagine. The useful lifespan is really measured in days or weeks.

This is a complicated issue, off the cuff analyses are easy, common, and completely wrong.

The new library of Alexandria replicates everything online on a regular basis. Something like 3 times a week.

You can search and find pretty much everything ever posted online.

Everything I capture on my iPhone is saved on iCloud. Images I wish to keep I can copy and or print. Any mother can do the same.

I'm not worried for anybody's kids. It's nice that the OP cares so much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[amolitor]

Well, you can go on about how it's possible to do this, and probably that, and the other thing.

The reality is that we're, as a society, taking a hell of a lot of pictures, and almost all of them are going to be, in practical terms, gone in the future.

Some families will carefully curate their online collections, and manage them, and make an effort to preserve them forward (e.g. Me). Some families will elect various options for printing: books, prints, whatever, and will maintain these collections of hard copied pictures. Some families, a lot of them, are going to continue piling pictures into facegooglickr with the same thoughtlessness that they shot 1 roll of film per year with a christmas tree on each end.

The bummer here is that the thoughtless Joe Average would, each year, wind up with 36 little prints which would get tossed in a box, and thus preserved more or less forever. Joe Average's kids have a couple hundred pictures of their birthdays, of Grandma, etc etc. It's a little facet of family history. It means something. When Joe dies, one of the kids comes across the box, has some of the better pictures duped, and shares them out. Everyone gets a couple pictures of Grandma, some pictures of their own birthdays, some little talismans to hang their life's memories on.

Joe Average in 2025 isn't going to have anything except last week's cell phone snaps. Sure, when Joe dies, Joe's kids COULD do a bunch of paperwork and force facebook to grant them access to Joe's account after Joe died, and then dig through the timeline to 2009, and dig up those same pictures. They're not going to, though. Those pictures are gone.

It's not a culture ending event. It's not even a big deal. Mankind got along fine up to 1960 or so without the little shoeboxes full of snaps, and will continue to do so.

Still, it's a sea change in the way we use photographs. It's a cultural change. It's likely to be one we regret, albeit mildly. And it is inevitable.

 

[AlanKlein]

Most times when I go to CVS, or Walgreens or one of those places that have those kiosks, there are people making prints from their memory cards or DVD's or whatever. I also notice that these places sell picture frames. Someone is making and framing shots of their kids.

 

[robbins.photo]

The reality is that we're, as a society, taking a hell of a lot of pictures, and almost all of them are going to be, in practical terms, gone in the future.

Well sure.. Zombie Apocalypse. I mean that's pretty much a given.

Some families will carefully curate their online collections, and manage them, and make an effort to preserve them forward (e.g. Me). Some families will elect various options for printing: books, prints, whatever, and will maintain these collections of hard copied pictures. Some families, a lot of them, are going to continue piling pictures into facegooglickr with the same thoughtlessness that they shot 1 roll of film per year with a christmas tree on each end.

The bummer here is that the thoughtless Joe Average would, each year, wind up with 36 little prints which would get tossed in a box, and thus preserved more or less forever. Joe Average's kids have a couple hundred pictures of their birthdays, of Grandma, etc etc. It's a little facet of family history. It means something. When Joe dies, one of the kids comes across the box, has some of the better pictures duped, and shares them out. Everyone gets a couple pictures of Grandma, some pictures of their own birthdays, some little talismans to hang their life's memories on.

Joe Average in 2025 isn't going to have anything except last week's cell phone snaps. Sure, when Joe dies, Joe's kids COULD do a bunch of paperwork and force facebook to grant them access to Joe's account after Joe died, and then dig through the timeline to 2009, and dig up those same pictures. They're not going to, though. Those pictures are gone.

It's not a culture ending event. It's not even a big deal. Mankind got along fine up to 1960 or so without the little shoeboxes full of snaps, and will continue to do so.

Still, it's a sea change in the way we use photographs. It's a cultural change. It's likely to be one we regret, albeit mildly. And it is inevitable.

I guess it's a matter of perspective. Sure, I've got some old family photo's - one of my uncles was a shutterbug back in the day and I've got some pictures of my great grandparents, grandparents and his family, etc. However I have another uncle that never learned how to use a camera and never took pictures himself, so I have no pictures of his immediate family until this most recent generation. When one of my family posts a picture I want to keep for the family archives, I either download it or have them send it to me and I store it for that purpose.

Digital is just another form of media, and just like any media it has advantages and disadvantages. The shoebox full of pictures is great - unless of course you go through a fire or a flood. Then all those memories are lost forever. So really it's not the end all be all of preserving family memories. Like anything else, it depends on how you approach it and the steps you take to ensure those memories are preserved for future generations.

 

[Kolia]

Actually, when Joe Average finds an old box of pictures, I hope they are not negative cuz those would be useless, he'll have no idea who's on it and put them back in the attic where he found them...

What will Joe Slightly above average do when he finds grand-pa's back up drive with 200,000 images ?

The whole discussion is pretty silly. Like you said yourself, those who care will keep images. Those who don't simply won't.

I use my DSLR less with my kids because it takes me away from the action. I use my compact camera and iPhone a lot more. That way I get to live now with my kids.

I can understand these moms who don't care about the nice print.

 

[amolitor]

Again, completely missing the point.

1970s-2000: default behavior, path of least resistance produces a little box of memories
today: default behavior does not

This is different and a loss. It is A Real Thing, and like all Real Things, cannot be waved away by wishing.

 

[vintagesnaps]

At some point they'll realize they don't have pictures of their kids when they were little... or of whatever significant events they've captured. Not that realistically people will save every picture they ever take, and plenty wouldn't necessarily be keepers anyway, but the technology is expected to change and as people replace their phones that they never got their kids out of, they won't have pictures to go back and look at... A friend and I were just talking about this, kind of sad really to think how much they may regret it later. But like many things it will probably run its course and people may want to take at least some photos in ways that they can save more permanently than on a phone they'll likely replace when a newer smart phone comes out.

 

[TCampbell]

At some point they'll realize they don't have pictures of their kids when they were little... or of whatever significant events they've captured.

Take that a step further... at some point their kids will realize they have no pictures of themselves from when they were younger -- and wonder why.

 

[leonardoDing]

They clearly know what they need. Not everyone have to be a photographer.

 

[jenko]

This discussion is interesting to me because I often have the opposite anxiety--that it will become too easy to find everything online--that seems to be the general direction we are headed, rather than digital material becoming less accessible it is becoming more accessible. That has been the trend since the beginning. I can tell my daughter over and over how accessible her interactions online are to others, but she is a teenager and such concerns do not phase her like they would an adult. Actually, I see quite a few adults posting things online that could be detrimental to their offline lives.