Trying the photo thing again

Tuesday November 2, 2004 at 12:47 am | Filed under Site

I’ve added a quick freebie mobile blog photo dealie to the left-hand side of the site here. Flickr is the service I’m using for it. It’s free and it’s pretty nifty. A similar idea to that Friendster thing nobody uses anymore, but with photos in mind this time. This collage is a collection of my recently snapped shots. You can click on one and go to the Flickr site to see more of my shots, or comment on the ones already there. If you sign up, of course, you can have your very own site to house you photos on, and develop relationships with others that share the same interests as you. See the friendster connection? I like the idea of community sites, but that’s not what I was looking for… I just really like the little flash app that it uses as its interface, but I’m not crazy about it not being integrated with my site so much, so I’m considering this a trial. Let me know what you think!

« New Mobiles Holidays already? »

No Responses to “Trying the photo thing again”

  1. Shana Says:
    November 2nd, 2004 at 9:25 am

    Where’s the picture of the squash……

  2. Jon Says:
    November 2nd, 2004 at 8:26 pm

    I’ve never even heard of friendster.

  3. Arlen Says:
    November 4th, 2004 at 3:17 pm

    The picture puzzle looks cool. I don’t see Flickr as something that I would use, personally, but that might be fun for a lot of other people. I hadn’t heard of Friendster, either.

    There is a certain charm to the whole idea of mobile photos–these pix are so ephemeral, yet there are multiple organizations (Flickr, and whatever else is out there) devoted to showcasing them. It’s kind of like if someone were to publish an anthology of post-it notes, or a gallery of squigglies that you draw to make sure a pen’s ink is flowing properly.

  4. Joe Says:
    November 4th, 2004 at 3:27 pm

    Arlen, you should look at flickr, it’s not just for mobile photos, that’s just what I’m using it for. But be careful, it may lead to social interaction!

    Also, I wanna dispell the misnomer (and also clear up the issue) that mobile photos are temporary. Why should they be? Where’d you get that idea? I think it’s just another way to document, just as a picture of better resolution would be. Mobile photography even adds an artsy edge of blur and mystery to to idea of a blog. Fascinating stuff, even.

  5. Arlen Says:
    November 5th, 2004 at 7:44 am

    Thanks for the warning–I wouldn’t want to socially interact, even by accident! hahaha

    I just see all digital photos as having a more temporary nature than film photos, at least until they’re printed. It’s more common to lose data to power surges or viruses, etc., than it is to lose your photos to fire or water damage. At least if there’s a fire, you can grab your photo albums and get out; with digital pix, you never know they’re gone till it’s too late.

    The occasion for taking photos is also more ephemeral with digital, and even moreso with mobile cameras. With digital one is likely to snap a pic just for the hell of it, because it costs nothing if it turns out bad. With a mobile cam, this is even more true. A person doesn’t (I assume) get the family together for a portrait and then whip out the cell phone camera.

    Anyway, I think it’s great that other people are putting the technology to socially-productive use. Takes all kinds, as they say!

  6. Joe Says:
    November 5th, 2004 at 9:56 am

    Ahh, I see what you’re saying. I thought you were dismissing the art. BAH! ;-)

  7. Arlen Says:
    November 5th, 2004 at 8:14 pm

    Well, “art” is another question . . . without any deep reflection on the matter, I would say that where the technology determines the final product in such a way that there’s really no substantive role for the artist to play in the production, it’s something other than art. But that can be said of traditional photography too, I suppose–there are snapshots, and there are art pictures, and what determines the difference is in the eye of the snapper.

    Can I just go on record as preferring not to take mobile photos myself? I’ll hold out until the picture quality makes a quantum leap, as I did with adopting digital in the first place. But I like pinhole photos, and they are “low quality” in their own way, so don’t listen to me.

  8. Joe Says:
    November 6th, 2004 at 10:29 pm

    Man, I was just about to bring up the pinhole thing. Pinholes, lomos, a camera that you dropped in the sink and now it takes wonky pictures, forgetting to vdevelop toms film so long that when you do age has put its own funky spin on them, etc. You don’t have to have a high quality photo for it to be great. Hell you don’t even need to know what you’re doing.

    I think I need to say again that flickr isn’t just for mobile photos. It’s so much more!

  9. Arlen Says:
    November 7th, 2004 at 9:12 am

    I was thinking about pinhole pix after I posted that comment; and there is one major difference between a pinhole camera and a cell-phone cam: You have to build the pinhole camera yourself, and have to understand how long to expose the film or paper, and have to develop the resulting image yourself. With point-n-shoots all these steps are taken out of your hands. So I do see a pinhole photo as more the product of the artist, whereas other kinds of photos, using “automatic” settings, are more the product of the apparatus.

    I believe you about Flickr’s greatness–but today I have other things calling for my time, so maybe I will check it out later!

  10. joe Says:
    November 7th, 2004 at 8:20 pm

    Pretty flimsy argument there, olt. You need to flip that around and realize that no matter what the apparatus is, people can still take crappy pictures with it. I think that mobile phone photography is just another way to express, to log, and to share. No need to bash the technology or say that it’s not up to par with other ways, it’s different, and I think that’s cool. Looks like you won’t be joining the mobile phone photo ranks anytime soon, though. :)

  11. Arlen Says:
    November 8th, 2004 at 7:36 am

    Flimsy? It seems manifest that a picture dependant on the skill and work of the photographer, produced in multiple steps, from the construction of the apparatus to the development of the image, is more a product of the photographer than is a picture produced by clicking a button.

    I agree with you that knowing what to do with a camera, or a pinhole box, or a paintbrush, makes all the difference; all I’m saying is that it takes more know-how and practice to take a pinhole photo than it does to use a pre-fab camera with automatic settings.

    There is a kind of water-color quality to that 50-yard-line “SD” picture . . . kinda artistic.

-->