Digital cameras--stop them before they shoot again

People today are taking billions more pictures than anyone wants to see. The notion is finally dawning that perhaps less may still be more.
The New York Times

The story "Digital cameras--stop them before they shoot again" published May 5, 2005 at 6:08 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.

[markdoiron]

Silly Postulation

it's silly to suggest that because we take more photos we'll suffer from some type of sensory overload. i suppose that the proponents of this idea aren't too happy the printing press was created? or how about when the computer was tied to a printer accessible to much of the world in their own homes? <br /><br />a good photo (artistically so, that is) or an interesting photo (to those with whom you'd like to share it, that is) will still be that. sharing with others multiple versions of essentially the same photo will only rate one as inconsiderate of the value of other's time (and probably result in others ignoring future photos). the article should place greater emphasis on selecting good/interesting photos to save and share, and dispense with all the silly socialogical analysis. <br /><br />mark d.<br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://members.cox.net/mddoiron" target="_newWindow">http://members.cox.net/mddoiron</a>

[avatarzero]

iPhoto

Sure, I have a lot of photos, but I use iPhoto to edit them and make them useful. If you have the right tools it's okay, but dumping thousands of pictures with no metadata into folders isn't a solution.

[Lindy01]

How about....

Wasted web space for stupid articles. <br /><br />I love seeing photos of my many family members. I cant belive people are complaing about this. <br /><br />I have 250+ cable channels and I watch about 15 of them......should I write an article about how its to much for people. No I just dont watch them. Dont open the pictures......do click on the link to the photo album.......come on you have the power to control your mouse...you can do it!!!!

[TV James]

In email, I agree. In albums I disagree.

We take a lot of pictures of our 10 month old. She's our first and well, she's the most amazing and photogenic baby in the world. <br /><br />Once a month, we create a new album on MSN Groups. Our friends and family have a link to the group, and they can decide whether or not they want a notification when there's new photos.<br /><br />For the ones that want the notification, MSN is nice enough to roll those notifications up into once-a-week.<br /><br />For those that don't, they can look at the pictures when they want to. Nice little thumbnails let you pick and choose which ones you want to look at.<br /><br />I see MSN's limited storage as a plus, too. Before I can upload the new month's pictures, I need to go weed older albums to make space. Over time, only the best pictures remain.<br /><br />But don't tell me how many pictures I can put in an album or how frequently I can create an album. It's your choice whether or not to visit my album.<br /><br />On the other hand, totally agree about e-mail. I hate getting lots of pictures in e-mail. Send me a link to your album. Usually the album provider has re-scaled the pictures into a more useful size, compared to the 5-megapixel pictures I get in e-mail.

I have to agree....

I have to agree with the rest of you. Sending hundreds of pictures a week to people by e-mail is just a rude, bad idea. But online albums or storage on your hard drive or on CD or DVD is just fine. I personally love looking at other peoples albums. It is a peak in to their lives and I get to see things that I other wise wouldn't get to see.<br /><br />I think digital photography is in many ways like todays news broadcasts where thanks to technology they can show anything almost instantly. Unlike ancient times where we now have to guess at how things were and looked and what people did we will have proof of todays history hundreds of years from now. Sure we may loose a lot of Photographs between now and then but not all of them.<br /><br />It is also my opinion that the Smithsonian (sp?) should setup some short of public archive where people can upload their images for history. It is a national treasury of our national photos. History must be remembered as it is the only way we learn for the long hall.<br /><br />Robert

It's all photography

Why would anyone take the time, to try to take a good picture - take a large number of pictures - and then NOT take the time to edit them down. It's all part of the photographic process. I bought my first DSLR (D70) recently &#38; filled a 1Gb every day, with about 190 (raw) pictures. I spent more time editing than taking the pictures. With my print SLR, I never knew if I had a good picture - I had to shoot a whole roll of prints &#38; get them developed &#38; maybe repeat a few times, until I knew I had a quality picture worth saving.<br /><br />The digial world &#38; instant feedback just allows a different approach - SURE keep shooting lots of time.....until you get the picture you want.......then STOP &#38; discard the also rans.<br /><br />OK - a photo of little Johhny taking a pee might be worthwhile (I'm single &#38; have never had kids, so guess my opinion on that). BUT, I don't need to see 20 near identical pictures - believe it or not, I CAN easily imagine what he would look like, framed differently. I don't need the other 19 pictures - just send me the best one &#38; trash the rest. <br /><br />I have about 400Gb of hard drive, but I am NOT going to waste space on bad pictures. Otherwise it's just "Optical Diarrhea".

[LesleyO]

Photography is photography.

For over 23 years, I used only traditional photography (mostly slides, some prints) after graduating in advertising design. That included working professionally as a press and freelance photographer before changing careers and having my love of photography as an avocation that sometimes earned me pocket money. <br /><br />In 1987, I was an early adopter of digital, given that often, our photography travel expenses exceeded those of our accommodations! After a year, I sold my 35mm kit for a better digital, and have never looked back. Sure, I have thousands of digital images, but just as I have over the years culled my slide and print collections, I do the same with the digitals. However, it's not done immediately, ever. Those images have to percolate through the filter of a year or more, just as the traditional photos did. The perspective of time is occasionally the only one that will tell you which photos are the valuable ones. <br /><br />That very awkward candid shot of my childhood girlfriend, taken when she was 57 and definitely one that would normally have been deleted, turned out to be the last one I'd have the opportunity to take of her. Who knew she'd be gone the following year?<br /><br />And no, they aren't all stored on my hard drive or sent to friends.