Originally Posted by ian408 That's where services like SmugMug and other sharing sites could offer products that were more archival in nature (and less sharing). The big danger is probably more the proliferation of Facebook sharing and the possibility those services go away and those photographs are just gone.

That's a good idea.

I'm sure facial recognition will play a role in archival retrieval but the amount of mis hits would be beyond human scale (my guess)

Originally Posted by torags That's a good idea. I'm sure facial recognition will play a role in archival retrieval but the amount of mis hits would be beyond human scale (my guess)

Facial recognition is pretty good. And it you've only got to search the pool of known images (ie; friends and family), it'll be pretty easy. The real issue will be training people to archive or providing them tools to make that easy for them.

I guess this whole topic was discussed when the Brownie came out and probably again when the Instamatic and Polaroid did again (albeit in smaller groups :)).

I don't know why I'd not seen this little documentary until today, but not only is it fitting for this day of remembrance, it addresses the power of a single image and therefore seems relevant to share on this thread.

The Falling Man

PJ.

Originally Posted by SciurusNiger I don't know why I'd not seen this little documentary until today, but not only is it fitting for this day of remembrance, it addresses the power of a single image and therefore seems relevant to share on this thread. The Falling Man PJ.

Wow.... well done vid and fitting post for today

The irony in this thread is palpable.

Originally Posted by anonymouscuban The irony in this thread is palpable.

Very true.

The discussion of digital photos, families, and archives is a prime example. There is a company out there that's already worked out a system to deal with all of those problems, and it's in use daily by ordinary people. But there's a reason it might not have been mentioned already. Let's work through it, starting with a summary of some of the questions already asked:

Q: How can a family possibly organize their photos in a way they could be found in the future?
A: Well, they oughta tag 'em.

Q: Who wants to tag 10,000 photos?
A: Face recognition would speed that up quite a bit.

Q: Won't face recognition take up too much resources, false hits, etc.
A: Picasa, iPhoto, Aperture, Facebook, etc. already have consumer-friendly face recognition in the market.

Q: Wouldn't there be other ways of organizing family photos other than individuals?
A: Oh, maybe by key life events, events with friends and family...

Now let's talk about the company that is doing this.

As you import photos, it's already checking your contact list for face matches. That dramatically lowers the computational requirements because the universe of faces is suddenly very small. To avoid false hits, it asks you to confirm the faces it's identified. Since you want the photos to be in the context of family history, the album is dated and you can assign a location. It will appear on a historical timeline next to other photos and events entered at different times.

What you have, in the end, is a virtual photographic diary, automatically arranged by time, searchable by family member, event, location...

What I just described is how Facebook already works.

The irony I'm talking about is that I suspect a lot of the people who are asking these questions might be some of the same people who often post how much they hate Facebook and never use it. Now, I hate Facebook as much as the next guy, but I sort of have to use it, and sort of fortunately, this means I have some understanding of what they're doing and I have to admit some aspects are pretty well thought out. To integrate Facebook Timeline/Events/Albums/Locations in a useful way requires a ton of personal information, which is why we hate Facebook, but they have certainly worked out a blueprint for organizing a family's digital life. (Which I hope someone else can do much better.)

Q: Oh, but isn't Facebook evil so they keep all your stuff? What happens if they fold, is your family screwed?
A: You should use the option that lets you download a copy of your entire account, including every photo album you ever uploaded. I do this every year or so.

I read, "An absolute must read" so I figured I must read it so I did. I read it three times to try to figure out why it's an absolute must read or even - no disrespect intended, bdcolon, - why it would be a should read.

The guy's writing from Perpignan; if you're writing from there, it's best you either have something to say or you say something loudly. He's an effective wordsmith but he contradicts himself. Hopefully he's a better photographer than he is a blogger. I don't think he thought much about what he wrote here.

This "The question is: How does the photographic community harness this explosion of visual energy to expand its audience? This is what needs to be focused on." seems kind of like an effete Chicken Little. If he has any thoughts about it, it might be interesting to know what they are.

I think he's just got enough hot air to rise up and float around and be visible.

Originally Posted by colourbox Q: Oh, but isn't Facebook evil so they keep all your stuff? What happens if they fold, is your family screwed? A: You should use the option that lets you download a copy of your entire account, including every photo album you ever uploaded. I do this every year or so.

This is excellent, I had no clue. Thanks, colourbox.

Good link, I saw that too. I don't mind the flood of images, I've come to filter well and I've come to rely on good curation as well. Even in the midst of the tsuami there are places to find good photography, from websites to tumblr (may I humbly suggest the curation of mpdrolet on tumblr). And certainly, James Estrin himself is part of the solution since his curation as editor of NYT's Lensblog is well appreciated. My browser opens to it every morning. He is also a very good photographer btw.

I do think the fact that everyone is a photographer now will increase the appreciation for serious photography but only by a small percentage. When I started getting serious about photography five years back or so, I gravitated to certain tastes and genres. There was a lot I didn't "get" or like. My tastes have changed substantially and artists like Friedlander or Sternfeld, Shore and Soth, are now some of my favorites (among many others). But I don't think a majority end up making that leap. Most people much prefer Robert Kincaid to Goya, and that's okay ... sort of ....

All of that said, I do believe the biggest impact is on the ability to make a living for the truly gifted committed photographers, and by that I mean those with a real vision and something to say. But that has always been a problem for artists. Sure, it's tough to rise above the ever-increasing noise but the one's that do, that push the hardest or have the vision and the drive to claw their way to the surface (and the trust fund), will still be appreciated, even if it isn't necessarily by the "masses."

For myself, a person of middling talent who just started to get good enough to get magazine assignments when the bottom dropped out, I see no chance to make a living with photography. I'm starting to believe this may have been a blessing. I've refocused and continue to refine my personal work, still skipping around yet trying to settle down within at least a handful of multiple personalities, but finding the joy in the avocation of truly trying to "see" as opposed to succumbing to the soul suck of shoving the roundness of personal fulfillment into the unforgiving square hole of commercial vocation. There is still hope for enough scratch from the "right" kind of work to pay for equipment. (ahem, Le Monde, still waiting for that wire transfer) and I can live with that.

In the end, I just want a coherent body of work that evolves and for which I can be proud as I continue to change the way I see the world. Someday maybe someone will even "get it."

Obviously since you do not know, James Estrin is a very accomplished photographer for The New York Times. He is also the editor of NYT's LensBlog which, for me, is a godsend of good curation. He also often sleeps under his desk. No joke.

He is channeling the angst that many committed professional documentary photographers, photojournalists and others are feeling right now within those communities. To those serious enough and talented enough to sacrifice everything, up to and including their lives, the ability to make a living from this work, and therefore the ability to do this work at all for so many truly talented visual storytellers, is very much in jeopardy. It ain't chicken little at all when you got Pultizer (and World Press Photo) winners who can't get work, end up working at Walmart, or worse, shooting weddings full time.

So, I think his question is a good one, and one everyone is asking, and for which there really are no answers in a landscape that is changing with exponentially increasing speed.

Originally Posted by marionet I read, "An absolute must read" so I figured I must read it so I did. I read it three times to try to figure out why it's an absolute must read or even - no disrespect intended, bdcolon, - why it would be a should read. The guy's writing from Perpignan; if you're writing from there, it's best you either have something to say or you say something loudly. He's an effective wordsmith but he contradicts himself. Hopefully he's a better photographer than he is a blogger. I don't think he thought much about what he wrote here. This "The question is: How does the photographic community harness this explosion of visual energy to expand its audience? This is what needs to be focused on." seems kind of like an effete Chicken Little. If he has any thoughts about it, it might be interesting to know what they are. I think he's just got enough hot air to rise up and float around and be visible.