1314: "Photos"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

adavies42
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:52 am UTC

1314: "Photos"

Postby adavies42 » Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:13 am UTC

Image

Title text: "I hate when people take photos of their meal instead of eating it, because there's nothing I love more than the sound of other people chewing."

Excellent, a new excuse for when people tell me to stop taking so many pictures and just "be".

alcore
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 6:34 pm UTC
Location: New Orleans
Contact:

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby alcore » Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:38 am UTC

I cannot help but think I've just read the most self-aware expression of self hatred that I have ever encountered.

Normally I like hat guy. He's a sociopath... but he targets the same things that annoy me... and my schadenfreude enjoys it. It's a bit uncomfortable to see him come up short this time as the butt of the joke.

User avatar
rhomboidal
Posts: 801
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby rhomboidal » Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:40 am UTC

I'd probably condescendingly criticize The Be-Hatted One about even enjoying sunsets in the first place. They're so banally mainstream.

sonicspin
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:17 am UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby sonicspin » Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:42 am UTC

this may not be a very intelligent reply, but I just have to

K.O.!
Cueball Wins

Alx_xlA
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:22 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Alx_xlA » Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:20 am UTC

Cueball seems to be speaking from the perspective of a relatively serious photographer who invests considerable time in selecting and composing shots, white White Hat Guy is referring to those who simply wave their phones around as an instinctive action and produce photos that are barely worth sharing on Facebook, much less having as keepsakes.

I don't know about you guys, but when it's something technically difficult like a sunset, whatever you get on a phone camera is probably not going to be satisfying.
My signature contains forty-four characters.

mszegedy
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:29 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby mszegedy » Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:35 am UTC

Yes, Mr. Munroe! Demolish that strawman! Feel its flesh tear in your hands! Unleash your inner animal!

I like his argument except I find it empirically false. I find that I can't both pay attention to something and take a picture of it at the same time. i.e., if I'm confronted with a great view, I can either enjoy the glorious 3D with the huge picture and many colors, or I can take a picture of it and look at it through my phone/camera. Usually the experience is transient enough that there's no time: I'm hiking, or it's a sunset, or it's fireworks. Something like that.

alcore wrote:I cannot help but think I've just read the most self-aware expression of self hatred that I have ever encountered.

Normally I like hat guy. He's a sociopath... but he targets the same things that annoy me... and my schadenfreude enjoys it. It's a bit uncomfortable to see him come up short this time as the butt of the joke.


White Hat Guy is not the same character as Black Hat Guy.

aerion111
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 11:53 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby aerion111 » Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:37 am UTC

alcore wrote:Normally I like hat guy. He's a sociopath... but he targets the same things that annoy me... and my schadenfreude enjoys it. It's a bit uncomfortable to see him come up short this time as the butt of the joke.

Different Hat-Guy, probably.
I think you're talking about Black-Hat-Guy (BHG?), while this guy clearly has a white hat.

It would be out of character for him, anyway - complaining to a stranger seems less his style than cobbling together an EMP or the like to fry their cameras.

riT-k0MA
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:27 am UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby riT-k0MA » Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:50 am UTC

An excellent meal is met by great acclaim; a truly magnificent meal is met by silence.

blastopast
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:12 am UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby blastopast » Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:19 am UTC

A recent study suggests that White Hat Guy may actually be on to something.
Association for Psychological Science wrote:In a new study, psychological scientist Linda Henkel of Fairfield University presents data showing that participants had worse memory for objects, and for specific object details, when they took photos of them.
...
To find out, she set up an experiment in the Bellarmine Museum of Art at Fairfield University. Undergraduates were led on a tour around the museum and were asked to take note of certain objects, either by photographing them or by simply observing them. The next day, their memory for the objects was tested.

The data showed that participants were less accurate in recognizing the objects they had photographed compared to those they had only observed. Furthermore, they weren’t able to answer as many questions about the objects’ visual details for those objects they had photographed.

esmeyny
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 10:28 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby esmeyny » Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:27 am UTC

I have to strongly disagree on pretending that this conflict is mainly about missionary non-camera people who do not let others peacefully photograph the sunset, because people taking photos are usually not alone, and they feel usually very, very entitled, long before taking "fun" photos of others are involved.

For example, the family sits down for the meal but then someone stops everything to get his camera and take a beautiful photo of the untouched roast just right.

Much worse, please come to the Louvre one day. In front of the Mona Lisa, there is a crowd and two thirds of the crowd are holding up a camera to take an unaimed picture of the Mona Lisa. You cannot really see the Mona Lisa because everything is obscured by arms and cameras. I do not believe that this "makes them pay more attention to it".

But the worst is a beautiful statue in the Louvre which happens to be among the couple dozen "featured" items on the free guide. I love this statue, so I will just stand beside it and look at it. Every 30 seconds, people with cameras come AND DEMAND THAT I STAND ASIDE SO THAT THEY CAN TAKE A PHOTO OF THE STATUE WITHOUT ME STANDING BEHIND IT.

The Synologist
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:50 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby The Synologist » Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:11 am UTC

I love taking videos, so I'm able to carry out a compromise in which I aim my phone at whatever I'm watching and keep it steady while looking at it with my own eyes.

User avatar
xkcdfan
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:10 am UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby xkcdfan » Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:21 am UTC

This thread is full of White Hat Guys. Thanks, Randall.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Kit. » Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:31 am UTC

I hate it when people try to take pictures of a distant view with their flashes turned on.

They obviously should use more power.

User avatar
BAReFOOt
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:48 am UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby BAReFOOt » Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:39 am UTC

All of that assumes they are actually enjoying the sunset just as much.

While the whole point is, that the shitty image has much less quality than the real thing, and so it is impossible to enjoy it just as much. That’s a just basic physics.
And that the exact moment (so: a short time!) that won’t come back, you’re staring at the shitty version with the real version right next to it. So you missed the real thing, the real experience, and the full joy. Forever!

And the reason it is annoying, which of course a stupid person will never comprehend, is that people that stupid aren’t just stupid there when it harms themselves, which would already be enough reason to tell them to stop it if they are friends one’s well-being one cares for… but when dealing with others too! (See: Elections, product choices, jobs they accept.) So they are generally harming society! And hence they are harming us. That is not just annoying. That is unacceptable!

Has Randall traveled to the Idiocracy and back lately, or what’s up with there being more and more ignorant dim-witted comics?

In any case, when somebody starts using words like “condescending”, it’s a clear sign that he is an insecure idiot. Anyone with a healthy level of confidence can handle criticism on a rational level, and either accept and learn from it, or have a rational argument for why it is wrong. Saying the other person is “just condescending” or “offending” is just being a mental baby, going “waaaaaaahhhh”. Nothing but childish pouting and stomping feet, because the jimmies of their unstable confidence have been rustled, and they have nothing to offer in return.

User avatar
BAReFOOt
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:48 am UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby BAReFOOt » Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:47 am UTC

xkcdfan wrote:This thread is full of White Hat Guys. Thanks, Randall.


I love how your side has all the good arguments. We can never hope to find anything that well-reasoned and convincing.
I mean you could nearly persuade a monkey with that!

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby blowfishhootie » Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:56 am UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:In any case, when somebody starts using words like “condescending”, it’s a clear sign that he is an insecure idiot.


Ooh, can I play this game?!

"In any case, when somebody starts using words like 'insecure idiot,' it's a clear sign that he is an insecure idiot."

Wooloomooloo
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:05 am UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Wooloomooloo » Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:00 am UTC

I've certainly seen people who do nothing else but continuously fiddle with their cameras / phones instead of being present in whatever they're busy taking pictures of (especially if they're shooting a video), but that's an extreme - generally, I'm quite capable of snapping a picture or two of something I'd like to remember AND enjoying it thoroughly before and after that. The thing to realize is that the photo needs not be better or as-good an experience as the original, as long as you've enjoyed that too - it's more of a mental bookmark that can take you back to that moment, even if it's not Adobe Color Calibrated and subpixel-sharp. Obviously, not all people care equally about stuff that already has happened and is now getting firmly buried in the past. I'm not especially a fan of those jerks who declare that nobody should.

BAReFOOt wrote:Anyone with a healthy level of confidence can handle criticism on a rational level, and either accept and learn from it, or have a rational argument for why it is wrong. Saying the other person is “just condescending” or “offending” is just being a mental baby, going “waaaaaaahhhh”. Nothing but childish pouting and stomping feet, because the jimmies of their unstable confidence have been rustled, and they have nothing to offer in return.

Right, because whatever makes sense to YOU must make sense to everyone, or else. *Sigh* yeah, I know people like that. They're a joy to be around. Do please try to keep in mind things outside scientific rigour do exist, and there are people other than you who strangely seem to adhere to a set of somewhat different values (totally incorrect ones, obviously).

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Djehutynakht » Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:02 am UTC

Personally, I like it when I'm in a group with someone who's really into photography. They can focus on taking pictures as they enjoy, and I can rest assured in knowing that I have all the moments captured without having to take the (lesser-quality) pictures myself, only needing to whip out a camera/phone when I find something particularly intriguing that I know my main-photographer wouldn't otherwise capture.

I see both sides. I tend to get a bit compulsive-documentarian when taking photos of a place I won't return to for a while.

tho74
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:20 am UTC

Tollerance for ignorance

Postby tho74 » Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:28 am UTC

I have a different understanding of the comic than most of you seem to have. To me, it appears to be less about claiming that photographing something actually increases the attention someone pays, or that anyone should try to understand the joy in photographing. To me it's more that we should simply be more tolerant of others "Living it" in whatever fashion they want, instead of ruining the moment for ourselves *and* for them by pointing out that they are - in our opinion - not "living" it. Point is, by wasting time on convincing them we are missing the opportunity of "living it" ourselves, and maybe they just enjoy playing with their camera in this nice setting.

However, I'd claim that I just enjoy feeling superior, and criticising others for taking useless photos is my way of enjoying the moment, thus "living it" ;-)

Afrael
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:23 am UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Afrael » Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:32 am UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:While the whole point is, that the shitty image has much less quality than the real thing, and so it is impossible to enjoy it just as much. That’s a just basic physics.

Technically speaking, I'm pretty sure that 99.99% of images have less quality than the real thing. Thus, we shouldn't take photos, ever.

525AM
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:21 am UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby 525AM » Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:54 am UTC

I enjoyed this comic because I frequently find myself in white-hate guys position. By making me annoyed with the straw man persona and wanting to have a way to rebuke Randall's avatar, I thought more deeply about the position than I usually do because in real life people rarely contradict it. My conclusion is this:

In real life when I make statements similar to white hat guy's, I'm only annoyed with the method of other people's happiness if it encumbers my own. For the specific instance of viewing a sunset, the irritation is minimal to be sure (that clicking sound takes you out of the timeless quality of the sunset alone whether you wanted to be or not and forces you to acknowledge the existence and petty lives of others) but I can think of, and other forum goers have already given examples for, many other instances when people taking photos instead of passively enjoying is a legitimate hindrance to the event itself. The Mona Lisa example, I think I liked the best. The White Hat guy's timing here is pretty terrible, because he's speaking of minor manifestation of a larger issue that plagues him and Randall focuses on the specific bad example. Anyway, in real life, I don't have a problem with sunset-photographers so long as they are other people. I can feel safely superior to their apparent lack of long term memory and compulsion to be constantly superficially connected to others, and so their actions have a welcomed place in my world. However if it's a person I'm with, I feel mildly insulted when they pull out the phone and start fiddling with it. I'm trying to share an experience with them, and when they take themselves out of that to share it with their friends it's at the expense of the our empathy. Or, what I had taken for empathy. In any case, that is my rebuttal - I'm not being condescending, I'm being narcissistic.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Kit. » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:14 am UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:All of that assumes they are actually enjoying the sunset just as much.

While the whole point is, that the shitty image has much less quality than the real thing, and so it is impossible to enjoy it just as much. That’s a just basic physics.
And that the exact moment (so: a short time!) that won’t come back, you’re staring at the shitty version with the real version right next to it. So you missed the real thing, the real experience, and the full joy. Forever!

Actually, they are enjoying it more.

I watched thousands of these shitty sunsets, and took thousands of those shitty pictures of them. The fact is, taking pictures is more fun. It's some artistic work that you are doing, rather than just staring at a pretty ordinary event of nature.

quenlinlom
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:08 am UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby quenlinlom » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:14 am UTC

I'm not sure, this comic reminds me of the "I AM SILLY!" comic archetype that many online strips have fallen victim to.

It's a lazy execution of setting up an easy/dumb opponent, and intentionally phrasing your own argument as eloquently as possible. It's polemic, and not thought-provoking.

User avatar
mojacardave
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:01 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby mojacardave » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:15 am UTC

Afrael wrote:
BAReFOOt wrote:While the whole point is, that the shitty image has much less quality than the real thing, and so it is impossible to enjoy it just as much. That’s a just basic physics.

Technically speaking, I'm pretty sure that 99.99% of images have less quality than the real thing. Thus, we shouldn't take photos, ever.


99.99% was a weird number to choose there! It depends what you mean by quality. If you just mean resolution and data content, then the number is actually 100%, but if you're being more artistic, and talking about composition, framing and the correct use of flash to improve the contrast then surely more than 0.01% of photographs is "better" than the scene they're capturing. I've seen beautiful photographs of derelict urban wastelands.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Klear » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:24 am UTC

I was always like the white-hat guy in this. Then recently there was this study:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304858104579264653611449962
I used to photograph a lot and stopped when I suspected that this was the case. Good to see some empirical data backing me in this.

And to answer cueball's question: Why the fuck do I care how someone else enjoys a sunset? Because they're my friends and family if I'm saying this to them, not complete strangers, and I care about them.

JeromeWest
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:47 am UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby JeromeWest » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:24 am UTC

Afrael wrote:
BAReFOOt wrote:While the whole point is, that the shitty image has much less quality than the real thing, and so it is impossible to enjoy it just as much. That’s a just basic physics.

Technically speaking, I'm pretty sure that 99.99% of images have less quality than the real thing. Thus, we shouldn't take photos, ever.


With a good photograph, the photographer is creating something new. It's meaningless to argue whether any work of art (a photograph, a painting, a piece of music, a novel) is "better" than the real-life experience that inspired it. But a great photograph is a work of art which stands apart from the reality of the scene, transforming rather than merely documenting the subject.

525AM
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:21 am UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby 525AM » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:26 am UTC

mojacardave wrote:
Afrael wrote:
BAReFOOt wrote:While the whole point is, that the shitty image has much less quality than the real thing, and so it is impossible to enjoy it just as much. That’s a just basic physics.

Technically speaking, I'm pretty sure that 99.99% of images have less quality than the real thing. Thus, we shouldn't take photos, ever.


99.99% was a weird number to choose there! It depends what you mean by quality. If you just mean resolution and data content, then the number is actually 100%, but if you're being more artistic, and talking about composition, framing and the correct use of flash to improve the contrast then surely more than 0.01% of photographs is "better" than the scene they're capturing. I've seen beautiful photographs of derelict urban wastelands.


99.99% of replies to posts of blatantly invented statistics are people quoting that gag that 99.99% of statistics are made up on the spot.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Klear » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:36 am UTC

This is a problem that's going to be somewhat fixed by google glass.

JeromeWest wrote:
Afrael wrote:
BAReFOOt wrote:While the whole point is, that the shitty image has much less quality than the real thing, and so it is impossible to enjoy it just as much. That’s a just basic physics.

Technically speaking, I'm pretty sure that 99.99% of images have less quality than the real thing. Thus, we shouldn't take photos, ever.


With a good photograph, the photographer is creating something new. It's meaningless to argue whether any work of art (a photograph, a painting, a piece of music, a novel) is "better" than the real-life experience that inspired it. But a great photograph is a work of art which stands apart from the reality of the scene, transforming rather than merely documenting the subject.


Yeah, but photos takes by a phone or going through instagram are automatically disqualified here.

User avatar
mojacardave
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:01 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby mojacardave » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:39 am UTC

Alx_xlA wrote:Cueball seems to be speaking from the perspective of a relatively serious photographer who invests considerable time in selecting and composing shots, white White Hat Guy is referring to those who simply wave their phones around as an instinctive action and produce photos that are barely worth sharing on Facebook, much less having as keepsakes.

I don't know about you guys, but when it's something technically difficult like a sunset, whatever you get on a phone camera is probably not going to be satisfying.


I don't think I'd actually have a problem with non-professional photographer people getting their phones out to snap a particularly impressive sunset. It's something worth trying to capture. Why insist on having a high-def camera on your phone if you're not going to bother capturing the most impressive moments.

What annoys me are the people who whip out their cameras at concerts, to record video of a blurry mass of lights and the sound of screaming crowds over the top of a thudding muffled bassline. If the comic had been defending that, I'd totally disagree, but I doubt Randall would have argued the same way for that behaviour because it's much less justifiable.

Also - semi-connected, but it reminds me of these pictures from the last papal announcements:
screen shot 2013-03-14 at 1.39.17 pm.png
Pope

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9119
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby BlitzGirl » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:44 am UTC

Klear wrote:I was always like the white-hat guy in this. Then recently there was this study:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304858104579264653611449962
I used to photograph a lot and stopped when I suspected that this was the case. Good to see some empirical data backing me in this.

I take issue with this study being heralded as PHOTOS BAD NO TAKE PHOTOS EVER, which is how news outlets seem to have interpreted it. The study focused exclusively on a very specific scenario of students taking photos of artwork in a museum. They were allowed 30 seconds to look at the artwork in person, then given a quiz on the artwork pieces the next day. That's what the results are derived from.

Also, from that article:
In a second phase of the study, Ms. Henkel instructed participants snap close-up shots of certain works and found that those people remembered the art just as well as those who looked without shooting. "It's a phenomenon called boundary extension," she said. "Our brains create a mental representation of that object. What the camera remembers is the photograph, but your mind remembers the object as a whole."
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3102
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby orthogon » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:46 am UTC

At least smartphone manufacturers are trying to discourage this behaviour by universally implementing that algorithm that waits until the thing you want to photograph is no longer there before actually taking the shot.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Andromeda321
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:31 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Andromeda321 » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:01 am UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:
BAReFOOt wrote:In any case, when somebody starts using words like “condescending”, it’s a clear sign that he is an insecure idiot.


Ooh, can I play this game?!

"In any case, when somebody starts using words like 'insecure idiot,' it's a clear sign that he is an insecure idiot."


Yup. I kinda love how this thread is also filled with people who are posting here who clearly overlooked the comic's message of "don't judge people over things that make them happy and do not affect you." Which is clearly something good for Randall to remind everyone of considering how few posting here are thinking of it.

kaley
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:52 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby kaley » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:14 am UTC

I find it weird that the focus of discussion is just about the photography. The comic's point is something very profound -- people make their own decisions how to live their life based on their own experiences and reasoning.

Yes, many people appear to make choices carelessly, but that doesn't mean everyone who makes similar choices is doing that.

Yes, you can find plenty of social science studies (even properly scientific ones) that make a claim that one or another behavior produces better results. All of these studies are based on statistics (if 99% of people get better results with choice A, there's still the 1% who are better off with choice B). This means that it is appropriate to say the majority should choose A, but it doesn't give you enough information to say which individuals are part of the 99%. That's where we each make our own decisions for our own lives.

This is the kind of arrogant and judgmental behavior that religious people are accused of all the time. The point is, we all do it (but granted, it's really obvious and annoying when religious people do it).

Let people experience life how they choose and stop being so judgmental all the time.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Klear » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:27 am UTC

kaley wrote:I find it weird that the focus of discussion is just about the photography. The comic's point is something very profound -- people make their own decisions how to live their life based on their own experiences and reasoning.

Yes, many people appear to make choices carelessly, but that doesn't mean everyone who makes similar choices is doing that.

Yes, you can find plenty of social science studies (even properly scientific ones) that make a claim that one or another behavior produces better results. All of these studies are based on statistics (if 99% of people get better results with choice A, there's still the 1% who are better off with choice B). This means that it is appropriate to say the majority should choose A, but it doesn't give you enough information to say which individuals are part of the 99%. That's where we each make our own decisions for our own lives.

This is the kind of arrogant and judgmental behavior that religious people are accused of all the time. The point is, we all do it (but granted, it's really obvious and annoying when religious people do it).

Let people experience life how they choose and stop being so judgmental all the time.


Surely you're not saying that if you ever give some sort of advice to people you are judgemental? I don't think anybody has a problem with taking photos as such, but there are people, who overdo it. And if they're your friends and family and you have a feeling like it's become an obsession, you know for a fact that they won't look at the photographs more than once, and you think they are distracting themselves from the very things they want to photograph, is it wrong to tell them so?

Of course, the worst thing is when they realize it is a bit inconvenient to take photos everywhere and stick the camera in your hands to do it for them =P

kaley
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:52 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby kaley » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:28 am UTC

Klear wrote:
kaley wrote:I find it weird that the focus of discussion is just about the photography. The comic's point is something very profound -- people make their own decisions how to live their life based on their own experiences and reasoning.

Yes, many people appear to make choices carelessly, but that doesn't mean everyone who makes similar choices is doing that.

Yes, you can find plenty of social science studies (even properly scientific ones) that make a claim that one or another behavior produces better results. All of these studies are based on statistics (if 99% of people get better results with choice A, there's still the 1% who are better off with choice B). This means that it is appropriate to say the majority should choose A, but it doesn't give you enough information to say which individuals are part of the 99%. That's where we each make our own decisions for our own lives.

This is the kind of arrogant and judgmental behavior that religious people are accused of all the time. The point is, we all do it (but granted, it's really obvious and annoying when religious people do it).

Let people experience life how they choose and stop being so judgmental all the time.


Surely you're not saying that if you ever give some sort of advice to people you are judgemental? I don't think anybody has a problem with taking photos as such, but there are people, who overdo it. And if they're your friends and family and you have a feeling like it's become an obsession, you know for a fact that they won't look at the photographs more than once, and you think they are distracting themselves from the very things they want to photograph, is it wrong to tell them so?

Of course, the worst thing is when they realize it is a bit inconvenient to take photos everywhere and stick the camera in your hands to do it for them =P


Of course not, advice is necessary. There's a difference between "let my experiences help you" and "because you chose differently, you're wrong".

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Klear » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:49 am UTC

kaley wrote:Of course not, advice is necessary. There's a difference between "let my experiences help you" and "because you chose differently, you're wrong".


Hmm.. I guess it falls down to whether you know more people who obsessively photograph everything or people who begin a rant as soon as someone takes out a camera. For me it's definitely the former, but I can see how someone with the other experience could enjoy this comic.

User avatar
J L
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:03 am UTC
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby J L » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:52 am UTC

I wouldn't want to convince anyone of the "proper" way to experience anything, but working as part-time tour guide, I know the difference between people creating memories of a place they enjoy, and people just recording something they don't give a damn about.

Modern technology makes it possible for people to archive more than they can ever take in. Which, overall, is probably a good thing. The real waste is when people spend their time collecting documents of reality and nobody ever uses these artifacts, not even themselves.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Kit. » Wed Jan 08, 2014 12:26 pm UTC

Andromeda321 wrote:the comic's message of "don't judge people over things that make them happy and do not affect you."

I hate when people completely misunderstand a comic's message.

However, I don't judge them over it.

Max Hutar
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:10 am UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Max Hutar » Wed Jan 08, 2014 12:39 pm UTC

Well, this comic is obviously trolling. But what the hell, it's trolling the people who should stand up to the current situation. Otherwise, Cueball has it too easy with such a dimwit as this whitehat is.

I hate the look of people taking photos of sunsets, not the people. I hate this look because it is making me sad. For several reasons.

First, I still consider taking pictures as a creative process which brings a new artefact into our world. And photographs of sunsets are just the cheapest kitsch you can imagine. You can argue that people are taking pictures for their purposes and because of that, it is not my business. It is, because the taste of the people is developing all the time, be it a private or a public piece of creativity. And this taste, wasted by these private kitschy photos which had never acquired the ambition to be there for any human being (and that means, even for the much finer art lovers than I will ever be), this taste is applied in very public issues affecting everybody. If my neighbour has low aesthetic feeling, he will flood slowly the whole world with ugly things.

Second, living your life through documenting it reduces it just to silent gazing without any interference. If you need to look through a device just for paying attention to something, and if your greatest adventures really are built around trying to photograph something, then I feel sorry for you. Looking at the sunset with, or without a camera, it is still nothing compared with running into the sunset. But the camera is something that is telling you to stop, because otherwise it would be no use for you and people are desperate if they are carrying something with them what has no use.

Third, there is this "remember moments" thing. There seems to be nothing wrong on just remembering moments, but what of the a moment can a camera remember and a human being not? The feeling? Your feeling is based just on your visual experience? Not on other senses, not on the life-situation you are currently in, not on the people you can act and interfere with (including yourself when alone)? Or if you do not want to preserve a feeling with your camera, perhaps you want to store the look for some further examination with a time distance. But what life situation will you abandon for looking at a visual imprint of a moment that you already lived? And are you really that insecure that you want to check your life moments twice? Imagine there was an animal on the picture which you have discovered later. Can you follow him now into the woods? No, it is gone. Or perhaps you want to share these photos with your friends and closest people who didn't had the opportunity to be there with you. Photography can be very fast on memoring facts and very precise on presenting them. But if these people are really more interested in photos of beautiful moments than moments where you are allowed to act, then they are the same gazing mob as the people taking the pictures for them. And this mob, present partly in flesh and partly in potential, is making me sad.

You still want to take pictures? Go pro. Buy an expensive device, master it, create something anyone can enjoy.

tl;dr: Enjoying the sunset is stupid - run into the sunset.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Red Hal » Wed Jan 08, 2014 12:46 pm UTC

List of pointless things #1: Using flash when taking a photo of a sunset1.


1Everyone knows Apple devices don't support flash.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 108 guests