|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 15, 2014 9:04:03 GMT
Ten percent of all the photos ever taken were taken in the last 12 months
They reckon that look at the last 2 years in history, move video has been uploaded onto U-Tube in that time that has been produced in the entire human history since film/moving pictures was invented.
Expand that, and they also say that two MONTHS worth of that two years may contain more social media of all kinds than has been created in the last 200 years, pre 2,000, when you consider all kinds of social media, Fakebook, twits, all other social media hosting sites, e-books and the rest.
Like Bloody hell?....
But, I have seen the maths.
It makes use of imaginary numbers and guestimates, because no one person can know exactly how many social media sites are out there being uploaded to right now...
However, even on the conservative side, the numbers are staggering.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 15, 2014 14:16:22 GMT
Ten percent of all the photos ever taken were taken in the last 12 months They reckon that look at the last 2 years in history, move video has been uploaded onto U-Tube in that time that has been produced in the entire human history since film/moving pictures was invented. Expand that, and they also say that two MONTHS worth of that two years may contain more social media of all kinds than has been created in the last 200 years, pre 2,000, when you consider all kinds of social media, Fakebook, twits, all other social media hosting sites, e-books and the rest. Like Bloody hell?.... But, I have seen the maths. It makes use of imaginary numbers and guestimates, because no one person can know exactly how many social media sites are out there being uploaded to right now... However, even on the conservative side, the numbers are staggering. and yet, there is no increase in the amount of stuff worth seeing... |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 15, 2014 14:57:07 GMT
My wife and I were recently looking through a box of old family photos of my Great Grandmother, Grandfather and my Mom. Some of the pictures were almost 100 years old.
I wonder if anyone will even know where their family pictures are in 100 years. Probably on some hard drive buried deep in a landfill.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 16, 2014 7:50:00 GMT
A British Comedian did a sketch on the fact that he was looking at (Being made to look at?...)Sisters Baby photographs, and there was the baby, in its chair, the self same baby was sat in the chair in the same clothes not 10ft away.
I often complain on the fact that people "Watch" live events through a 4inch screen, and miss whats going on around them.
What happened to the party at a live gig?.. the crowd used to sing along, not shush their neighbours because they cant hear the actual band on their video-cam?...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 16, 2014 14:19:10 GMT
A British Comedian did a sketch on the fact that he was looking at (Being made to look at?...)Sisters Baby photographs, and there was the baby, in its chair, the self same baby was sat in the chair in the same clothes not 10ft away. I often complain on the fact that people "Watch" live events through a 4inch screen, and miss whats going on around them. What happened to the party at a live gig?.. the crowd used to sing along, not shush their neighbours because they cant hear the actual band on their video-cam?... depends on the particular performer. I have heard reports of performers shushing their audience if they start singing along. (some politely, some rudely) |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 16, 2014 16:35:42 GMT
A British Comedian did a sketch on the fact that he was looking at (Being made to look at?...)Sisters Baby photographs, and there was the baby, in its chair, the self same baby was sat in the chair in the same clothes not 10ft away. I often complain on the fact that people "Watch" live events through a 4inch screen, and miss whats going on around them. What happened to the party at a live gig?.. the crowd used to sing along, not shush their neighbours because they cant hear the actual band on their video-cam?... depends on the particular performer. I have heard reports of performers shushing their audience if they start singing along. (some politely, some rudely) Maybe a marketing opportunity here. $50 for tickets in the sing-along section and $30 in the shut up and listen section. (or vise versa) |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 16, 2014 16:39:04 GMT
depends on the particular performer. I have heard reports of performers shushing their audience if they start singing along. (some politely, some rudely) Maybe a marketing opportunity here. $50 for tickets in the sing-along section and $30 in the shut up and listen section. (or vise versa) separating those who enjoy music by singing along from those who paid to hear the performer, not the bad singer next to them. sounds like a good idea to me. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 16, 2014 19:45:48 GMT
I often complain on the fact that people "Watch" live events through a 4inch screen, and miss whats going on around them. Not surprisingly, I completely agree. My kid plays handball and some of the parents at the games don't really watch what's going on until they get home and see it on their phones. At one game there was this one dad who didn't realize his kid had fallen and broken his nose, until the coach physically grabbed his phone, pulled it down in front of him and asked him: "You are aware that's actually your son out there and not some fictional charachter on a TV show, right?" People are missing the entire experience of life, because they're too busy recording it for later. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 17, 2014 6:41:53 GMT
I support the shut up and listen being separated from the sing along... perhaps on different nights completely....?...
But that is because I WANT to hear the sing along, thats what you go for.
If you just wanted to listen, buy the bloody album?....
Live Gigs are a participation event, people dont go to just sit and do nowt, that akin to going to a barn dance and just standing still in the middle of the dance floor?....
And again as a Roadie, Backstage chatter, "Boy theyy are loud tonight!!!", said along with ways of how this is one of the better gigs they have done on this tour.
The louder the fans are, the better the gig, the more everyone enjoys the gig.
A Sing-Along is as important as a standing ovation that lasts as long as the song...
If you come away from a damn good rock gig able to speak and hear at normal levels, you didnt really enjoy it did you?....
The Knitting circle's classical music appreciation society is next week....
And if you think all classical music is quiet audience, watch the Last night at the Proms.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 17, 2014 13:56:09 GMT
I support the shut up and listen being separated from the sing along... perhaps on different nights completely....?... But that is because I WANT to hear the sing along, thats what you go for. If you just wanted to listen, buy the bloody album?.... Live Gigs are a participation event, people dont go to just sit and do nowt, that akin to going to a barn dance and just standing still in the middle of the dance floor?.... And again as a Roadie, Backstage chatter, "Boy theyy are loud tonight!!!", said along with ways of how this is one of the better gigs they have done on this tour. The louder the fans are, the better the gig, the more everyone enjoys the gig. A Sing-Along is as important as a standing ovation that lasts as long as the song... If you come away from a damn good rock gig able to speak and hear at normal levels, you didnt really enjoy it did you?.... The Knitting circle's classical music appreciation society is next week.... And if you think all classical music is quiet audience, watch the Last night at the Proms. I actually developed a habit of wearing discreet earplugs. it helped me hear the music better, and hear other things better after the show. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 18, 2014 8:59:48 GMT
I used ear-pugs as a roadie.
Especially on stage during sound checks.
As for at the concert as Audience, I just didnt get that close to the stage, or the speaker stacks....
|
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Oct 6, 2014 2:20:18 GMT
I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find that this is true, or close enough to true. When people don't have to pay for film and processing for every click of the shutter, they give little thought of what they take pictures of. Just earlier today I suggested rather harshly that my wife spends half of her life taking photos and the other half looking at them. I can't stand it when people spend ridiculous amounts of the day/night, totally engrossed in their phones/themselves. Every time I transfer photos from the camera to my computer I end up deleting several "selfies" Many of them very nearly identical. I can't think of too many things that are more self absorbed than constantly taking photos of one's self.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 6, 2014 8:41:41 GMT
Which just reminded me of something I heard a while back... someone was complaining about his Daughter who was being an absolute pain with Camera. "Smile for camera", how quickly can that get annoying?.... Especially when they are doing this every 30 seconds or so..... I just had a thought. I was watching something sometime about people who wear automated camera's to record their life every 30 seconds. Like how sad?.... Just who in the hell is ever going to go sit through a whole day watching someone elses day?..... But the question would be, how do you stop them? I have had arguments with family over "Smile for camera" moments, I dont, I never will, and I find it repugnant to be asked to "Pose" for shots. "Do something funny"........... to whom?.. funny to you?.. no, I dont do that, if you want a performing sea-lion, go find one. Funny to me?.. smash that annoying (beep)ing camera over your head would be mildly amusing to me is you ask that one more time..... But you have a camera?............ Yes, yes I do... and how many times do I ask YOU to pose for camera?..... And when you start to "pose", how quickly do I turn my lens away?.... "Take a Picture of me......" There was one occasion where a little girl of about 5 or 6 pursued me around a function demanding I take photographs of her. It didnt take long to find out that Mummy and Daddy were finding this extremely good for them, as they were usually the object of her "Demands", and having their daughter pick on someone else was an escape for them. This annoyed me. So I tackle them. "Mummy" thinks I am being out of order for not amusing her child.... When I point out that my own children are being denied my attention because of her selfish likkle git hogging my lens and how inappropriate it is for her to expect me to babysit her without consent at cost to my own children?.... I am NOT a professional photographer..... I may have a decent camera, I may have some knowledge, but, I also have the ability to put the (beep)ing thing away. Which has annoyed some.... "We want you to do the photographs" Nope.... I was invited to attend a family wedding, on the basis I turn up with the camera.... Now hold on just a moment........... PHWATT?  ?.... Are you trying to say that I wont be welcome without the camera?... "But its so-and-so's wedding they need a photographer..." So they wont invite me as a family member, only as a Photog?... well, seems like I am busy that day. Of course, this is the Brides Mother making the "Demands"...... Its one reason I have NEVER done a wedding.... Brides Mothers make all the demands and are a right royal pain in the [donkey] I have never met a pleasant Brides Mother yet. Lets be honest here, it is not the Brides day, the day belongs to the Brides Mother, who will "organise" everything..... Even if she isnt the official organiser. I have seen the official list of photographs to be taken "Torn up" by a M-I-L with a purpose. I wouldnt mind, but she wasnt paying for any of that. I hear she even tried to pick the wedding album photo's.... So that wedding I was ORDERED to cover?... after a conversation where the Bride apologised for her mother, I was only to happy to attend.... I left my Camera at home. Brides Mum GLARED at me all day... until I tackled her, "You dont like me, well guess what, I have no reason to care what you think... you are a nasty person, now stop the attitude before I make it a scene and spoil your day... which I can... you know I can...." Photographers are starting to spoil everything. If I have to deal with one more "Excuse me I need to be there so I can take a photo", I will only be to happy. Getting elbowed out of the way by one ends badly, I usually over-balance and end up stabbing their foot with my walking stick?.... Which has a metal ferrule on the end, I dont "do" comfortable rubber stopper on the end of my walking stick.... I also dont do the thing where I will surrender my own vantage point to allow someone else all the good shots either. I am there for a reason... and I was here FIRST..... |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Oct 6, 2014 13:32:10 GMT
I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find that this is true, or close enough to true. When people don't have to pay for film and processing for every click of the shutter, they give little thought of what they take pictures of. Just earlier today I suggested rather harshly that my wife spends half of her life taking photos and the other half looking at them. I can't stand it when people spend ridiculous amounts of the day/night, totally engrossed in their phones/themselves. Every time I transfer photos from the camera to my computer I end up deleting several "selfies" Many of them very nearly identical. I can't think of too many things that are more self absorbed than constantly taking photos of one's self. Couldn't agree with you more on the "selfie" (I F**KING HATE THAT WORD!!!). What's funny to me is that this completely self absorbed behavior is a phenomenon brought on by these so-called "social media". Would someone please explain to me how being totally self absorbed, posting your every move - with accompanying pictures to document said move - and generally being uninterested in what others contribute to society, because they're not you and are therefore not deserving of your interest, has anything to do with "being social"? It shouldn't be called "social media". It should just be called MEdia, because that's what it is for many people. A way to stage themselves so other people will find them interesting. Problem is, other people don't find them interesting, because they're also too busy staging themselves to notice what anyone else is doing. So-called "experts" say society's becoming more socially active than ever, when it's really moving in the opposite direction. People couldn't possibly care less about anything other people do, unless it has a direct impact on them. People are constantly looking for venues, not to gather with others to hear what they have to say, but to be heard themselves and the truth to that claim can be found in the sheer number of venues provided and used. Facebook, Twitter, Google+, YouTube, MySpace, Instagram, various forums, comment sections on newspaper websites and so on. We're constantly invited to share what's on our minds, but beyond getting our own opinons off our chests, we might never return to that particular news site where we spent 10 minutes commenting on an article, because we really don't care what others think. We just want them to know what WE think. What else would the explanation be for the same person having a Facebook page, a MySpace page, a Twitter page and a Google+ page where they're "friends" with the exact same people and post the exact same things on each and every one? |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 7, 2014 6:40:23 GMT
Just who the hell has the time to trawl through all these selfish photographs?....
Its not as if you have the time when you are checking your own anyway.
BAD invention, the camera that sends your snaps straight to fake-book.
|
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Oct 8, 2014 13:45:24 GMT
When I read your OP, I don't take it the same as the subject though. The subject is "10% of all photos ever taken were in the last 12 months". I don't think this is true, although I do feel more people take more pictures than ever before. However, the post you made sounds like you are talking about pictures/movies being uploaded to the internet. I would believe that myth.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 9, 2014 8:26:46 GMT
I think less than quarter of the photo's taken are even considered for uploading to the web anyway.
It may well be a lot less than that.
Less than one percent of photo's I have taken have ever been put anywhere near the web......
|
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Nov 16, 2014 7:20:45 GMT
I must admit I do use Facebook, but mostly to keep in touch with family. I also admit to having uploaded photo's to said site, but if I'm honest, was essentially to say, "Look what I did". There is however, at least according to me, a big difference between self promotion and self centeredness. Even so, often the line between the two can be rather murky. I just uploaded some photos to the "Funny pictures and captions" thread, even though I didn't take any of them, and that I thought you might enjoy them, it still could be said that they are about me, what I find amusing. Interestingly, though the lines can be murky, some of us manage to be able to tell the difference.
One thing I find extremely annoying is those people who don't bother making sure the photos they upload are even right-side-up. What, now I am supposed to go out of my way turning my head in whatever convoluted manner needed to view your picture?
|
|
?....