Author Topic: Are snapshots dead?  (Read 1213 times)

Francois

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,769
Are snapshots dead?
« on: August 10, 2013, 03:50:40 PM »
Here's an interview from NPR
http://vimeo.com/71998906#
Francois

Film is the vinyl record of photography.

Flippy

  • Sheet Film
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
Re: Are snapshots dead?
« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2013, 06:47:10 PM »
Not dead, just overshadowed. They will always be around.

ManuelL

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 834
Re: Are snapshots dead?
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2013, 04:41:21 PM »
People are taking snapshots as they always did, but I think nowadays they almost never make it to the print. They just sit around on the mobile phones and computers for a while and then get lost if people don't think they are worth archiving. Its a pitty, because snapshots show life as it is and might be the most intresting to keep.



Francois

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,769
Re: Are snapshots dead?
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2013, 10:30:58 PM »
Just what they said in the interview.
And it comes pack to the interesting question: is a picture that is not printed really a picture?
Francois

Film is the vinyl record of photography.

charles binns

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,134
    • Here and There
Re: Are snapshots dead?
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2013, 07:43:41 PM »
Just what they said in the interview.
And it comes pack to the interesting question: is a picture that is not printed really a picture?

Is drawing art or do you have to colour it in?  Ali G ;)

stevesegz

  • 120
  • **
  • Posts: 178
Re: Are snapshots dead?
« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2013, 07:30:30 AM »
Quote
Just what they said in the interview.
And it comes pack to the interesting question: is a picture that is not printed really a picture?

It is an image, in my view it is not a photograph until it is printed. An image on a screen is a replication yes, but it disappears as quickly as moving onto the next image on flickr, it is transient and so should be called an image, a bit like a rainbow there one minute gone the next. A photograph has substance that will remain that can be viewed, handled or destroyed.

Just saying I get a bit tetchy when images are called photographs.

Bit cranky today.

 
If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera.  ~Lewis Hine

jojonas~

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,928
  • back at 63° 49′ 32″ N
    • jojonas @ flickr
Re: Are snapshots dead?
« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2013, 04:43:09 PM »
And it comes pack to the interesting question: is a picture that is not printed really a picture?
for the sake of keeping things tangible, I just hope that people don't forget the worth of a print.

related?:
/jonas

DonkeyDave

  • Sheet Film
  • ****
  • Posts: 455
Re: Are snapshots dead?
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2013, 11:10:31 PM »
We have a picture wall at home, it used to be just polaroids, but now my daughter has an iphone I print out hipstamatic/instagram etc. There are no rules, just pictures and old bits of blu-tac. It changes day to day, week to week, it's just our life, the exciting bits the mundane bits, all on a wall. When people visit, they are drawn to it, but not everyone gets it.

John Robison

  • Sheet Film
  • ****
  • Posts: 462
Re: Are snapshots dead?
« Reply #8 on: August 14, 2013, 01:51:28 PM »
It's true I'm afraid. Makes me want to load up my Box Tengor and snap photos of the grand kids, then contact print them and put them in albums with the little gummed paper cormers. Too bad Dekel edge cutters are so high priced.

Francois

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,769
Re: Are snapshots dead?
« Reply #9 on: August 14, 2013, 03:07:17 PM »
Too bad Dekel edge cutters are so high priced.
If you look at the scrapbooking section of some dollar stores, you can find somewhat decent deckle edge scissors for really cheap.
The trick to doing a good job with them is not to snap the scissors closed between cuts.
Francois

Film is the vinyl record of photography.