The end of the family album (Page 3): I still print my best digital photographs. My wife bought me two albums in which to put them (my 11x14s); I'm making a similar album of family...

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

I still print my best digital photographs. My wife bought me two albums in which to put them (my 11x14s); I'm making a similar album of family photos (mostly my grandson) and other 8x10s I've made (I guess that will be two more albums!)

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

photoman022 wrote:

I still print my best digital photographs. My wife bought me two albums in which to put them (my 11x14s); I'm making a similar album of family photos (mostly my grandson) and other 8x10s I've made (I guess that will be two more albums!)

++++

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Wingpilot wrote:

I have multiple boxes with color prints stored in ... (show quote)

I'd rather watch a slideshow as opposed to having someone hand me their camera and say "here, scroll through these."

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

RodeoMan wrote:

I'd rather watch a slideshow as opposed to having someone hand me their camera and say "here, scroll through these."

So much for future generations in your family? Some people write autobiographies of their lives to set the records strait as they see it. Some leave albums of how they see themselves. It sounds like neither interests you much. Just now I am reading the 800page autobiography of the great film maker Leni Riefenstahl who lived 102 years, spanning the 20th century. She was maligned and black-balled for a major portion of her life--but she set the record straight with her great achievements. And certainly outlived her critics.------ew

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

DebAnn wrote:

Well I guess that still constitutes an album, it's just the format that's changed.

As this thread has said---it all depends on the archival nature or importance one places on passing along one's images as they see them. Saved photos of the past imply that the saver felt them representative. Who will save digital images by the thousands?-----ew

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

OldSchool-WI wrote:

As this thread has said---it all depends on the archival nature or importance one places on passing along one's images as they see them. Saved photos of the past imply that the saver felt them representative. Who will save digital images by the thousands?-----ew

P.S.----We become lazy about saving the "present" since we are so familiar with it. But fifty years from now those viewing will not be so. I enjoy old movies from before my time because they show a forgotten past. (Plus they are better crafted and faster paced that today's movies.)-----ew

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

DebAnn wrote:

Well I guess that still constitutes an album, it's just the format that's changed.

DebAnn, lets imagine that we want our great grandchildren to have an opportunity to be able to view not only people and places in our generation, but also images of people and places of generations going back into the 1800'. Do you think that digitized images will provide the best chance for this to happen? I'd put my money on the shoe box and photo album. Yes these are both formats each containing versions of the same images, but one choice when viewed across the long arc of time is temporary and transitory, while the other has the possibility of much greater permanance. Thank you.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

OldSchool-WI wrote:

So much for future generations in your family? So... (show quote)

"So much for the future generations of in {my} family" What are you talking about? l was responding to a statement of someone who had said that his slide projector had broken and "besides who wants to look at slides"
My reply was that I'd rather look at a slideshow than scroll through images on the back of camera (or phone for that matter). I said nothing at all about not preserving images in printed form. In fact in numerous posts on this forum I have advocated for the shoe box and photo album as opposed to digitizing the images we want to perserve for the future.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

gvarner wrote:

At 77, I suspect that the concept of the family album will disappear with my generation. The digital world is loaded with photos that are just a click away, so easy to do that children can do it, and easy to share. In the days of yore there was only one, maybe two family members who snapped away at birthdays and other events, making prints and storing them away for posterity. Now the ether is flooded with such images, take your pick.

I wonder how many in here still have a wallet with those plastic picture holders filled with family wallet sized photo's?

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Racmanaz wrote:

I wonder how many in here still have a wallet with those plastic picture holders filled with family wallet sized photo's?

Too many credit cards, insurance cards, store cards, etc.

My wallet would be 4-6” thick with all the photos. They take up much less space in my phone.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

OldSchool-WI wrote:

As this thread has said---it all depends on the archival nature or importance one places on passing along one's images as they see them. Saved photos of the past imply that the saver felt them representative. Who will save digital images by the thousands?-----ew

Just about everyone would be my guess.

One of the MANY virtues of digital is they are easy to archive and NEVER deteriorate. Yes, you can lose your media but if you care even a little bit, you have multiple copies, including remote storage. Viewing is easy for most living in the digital world today. The few people rejecting the digital world, particularly photography, will be gone in the near future. Much bigger issue than digital vs print media is who will give a darn at all when you're gone. Your kids maybe a bit, but grandkids, not likely, and great grandkids, only to laugh at the ridiculous clothes people wore way back when...

William Royer Loc: Kansas

A big concern I have about digital storage (as a sole method) is obsolescence of the current technology by the time the recipients are interested in such photos. Had my ancestors saved images on, as example, floppy discs, that would be a challenge for today’s viewing and appreciation. I’ve heard it recommended that — on those relatively few digital images (compared to the zillion we may have) that one REALLY want successive generations to have/see, one should make a print of them. (I’m thinking 8x10’ish). The reasoning was that as today’s technology evolves over the next decades, one can always see a print. And, there likely will always be a way to make a good copy of a print.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Wingpilot wrote:

I have multiple boxes with color prints stored in ... (show quote)

My nieces and nephews and their children actually love to watch movies on a screen with an old Bell & Howell 16mm projector. It has a mono speaker. Many are films my father and uncle somehow obtained while in the Pacific theater during WWII.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Longshadow wrote:

It's so easy now to take MANY, many pictures of things.

And some people take so many pictures, they hardly find the time to actually look at them beyond the initial review after download.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

rook2c4 wrote:

And some people take so many pictures, they hardly find the time to actually look at them beyond the initial review after download.

Some want to shoot 30fps, at that point why not just use the video feature?